Court No. - 33
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8018 of 2018 Petitioner :- Prema Devi And 06 Others Respondent :- Shreeman Sachiv Swathya Mantrayala And 02 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Nath Singh,Phool Chandra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the record.
The petitioners had instituted Original Suit No.529 of 2012 for declaration that the gift deed dated 5th December, 2007 executed by father of the petitioners in favour of the defendants has become ineffective on account of non fulfilment of the condition of gift which was to utilize subject matter of gift for a hospital. During the pendency of the suit, application 47 Ga was filed by the petitioners to seek temporary prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from carrying out constructions/repair work. It was pleaded by the petitioners that the gifted land was not utilized for the purposes of hospital and therefore the donor including his successors in interest were entitled to return of possession of the land.
The defendants contested the suit by filing documents disclosing that already a primary health centre was there and repair work etc. was being carried out.
The trial court after taking into consideration the material brought on record rejected the interim injunction application by order dated 9th April, 2015 against which the petitioners filed Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2015, which was rejected by the District Judge, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 2nd May, 2018.
Assailing the orders passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the instant petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that mere repair work would not amount to fulfilment of condition of the gift which was to run a hospital and therefore there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from raising further constructions.
I have carefully perused the orders passed by the courts below. A perusal thereof along with the plaint would reveal that the gift deed was executed in the year 1979 and according to the own case of the plaintiffs cause of action arose in 1996 when running of hospital was stopped. Meaning thereby that the hospital was established. Further, the trial court from the material on record found that there existed a hospital. Under the circumstances to issue injunction to stop a hospital which had already been established was not at all justified as it would seriously prejudice public interest.
The reasons recorded by the courts below to reject the interim injunction application are sound. No case for interference is made out.
The petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018, Rks.