Matters Under Article 227 No. 5596 of 2015. Case: Samshad Begum and Ors. Vs Rizwaan and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)

Case NumberMatters Under Article 227 No. 5596 of 2015
CounselFor Appellant: Anurag Pathak and Harshit Pathak, Advs. and For Respondents: Atul Dayal, Adv.
JudgesManoj Kumar Gupta, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 227; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 41
Judgement DateOctober 05, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Allahabad (India)

Order:

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.

  1. The petitioners instituted Original Suit No. 225 of 2014 against the defendant-respondents for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining them from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the suit property, which is a residential house described at the foot of the plaint. A further injunction has been sought against the defendants restraining them from demolishing any portion of the suit property or from raising any new constructions. According to the plaint case, suit property was purchased by Munshi Sayeed Ahmad on 17.2.1972. However, defendant-respondent No. 3, who was his first wife was also shown as a co-vendee. According to the petitioners, the sale deed in respect of half share in favour of the defendant No. 3 was a benami transaction, the real owner being Munshi Sayeed Ahmad. It has further been pleaded that on 21.3.1983, Munshi Sayeed Ahmad divorced his first wife, defendant No. 3 and remarried, plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 to 8 are the issues born out of the wedlock between Munshi Sayeed Ahmad and plaintiff No. 1. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property but the defendants are wrongly interfering in the possession of the petitioners, and hence the suit.

  2. The suit was contested by defendant-respondents contending that infact, suit property belonged to Mst. Hazzan Rashidan, mother of defendant No. 3. On account of marriage of defendant No. 3 with Munshi Sayeed Ahmad, she executed a sale deed dated 17.2.1972 in favour of her daughter and also included the name of Munshi Sayeed Ahmad being her husband. It was further claimed that infact it was the defendant No. 3 who was the real owner of the entire property. It was denied that any divorce had taken place between the third defendant and Munshi Sayeed Ahmad. It was further pleaded that he also married plaintiff No. 1 and on request of her husband, the third defendant permitted plaintiff No. 1 and her children to occupy the western portion of the house, which has a separate entrance. It was claimed that the eastern half portion of the suit property was transferred by the defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 by registered sale deed dated 30.6.2014 and actual physical possession over the said portion was also delivered to them. The suit for injunction simplicitor has been filed by concealment of material facts.

  3. In the suit, plaintiffs also filed an application for temporary injunction...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT