Ankit Kumar vs Smt. Sabbri & Ors.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 15 of 2024, Smt. Sabbri v. Ankit Kumar and others, by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the suit”), by which an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The respondent no. 1 filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.10.2023 executed in favour of the appellant. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 in the plaint that she owns a property. In the first week of October, 2023, the respondent no. 2 approached her and informed that some person wants to purchase her property, therefore, agreement to sell may be executed and she would get Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance. Believing the respondent no. 2, it is the case of the respondent no. 1 Smt. Sabbri in the suit that she signed certain documents believing that they are agreement to sell and received Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance by way of a cheque. Subsequently, she came to know that under the garb of the agreement, sale deed dated 16.10.2023 has been executed in favour of the appellant, for which cancellation, the suit has been filed.

In the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. Objections were filed by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no fraud was played on the respondent no. 1; the respondent no. 1 had willingly executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant; Rs. 5,00,000/- was given in advance and the remaining amount has already been paid to the respondent no. 1, which has been deposited in her bank account; therefore, there is no question of fraud. It is argued that after the sale deed, the possession of the disputed property was also handed over to the appellant and the appellant has been recorded in the revenue records by mutation proceedings. Those documents have been referred to also.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the respondent no. 1 is an old woman; she does not know the niceties of the document’s execution; she was merely informed by the respondent no. 2 that somebody wants to purchase her land and an agreement to sell could be executed; therefore, believing the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1 signed certain documents considering them as an agreement to sell; but, subsequently, she came to know that it was, in fact, a sale deed. It is argued that the respondent no. 1 only received Rs. 5,00,000/-. Though he admits that in the account of the respondent no. 1, Rs. 13 lakh was deposited, but, according to him, the respondent no. 1 received only Rs. 5,00,000/-; she did not withdraw any amount.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact, Rs. 13,00,000/- was given by way of instruments and the remaining amount was given in cash. It was admitted by the respondent no. 1 in the sale deed.

There are basic principles for grant of temporary injunction, which are prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In the impugned order, in fact, no discussion as such has been made. What records in the impugned order is that that as to who is the owner in possession, this fact will be decided after evidence. Undoubtedly, final determination will be done after evidence. But, at the stage of deciding the temporary injunction application, the court has to appreciate the material to the extent of examining prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

In the sale deed, it is stated that the payments were made and the possession was delivered. It is an admitted case of the respondent no. 1 that Rs. 13,00,000/- was deposited in her account. She herself admits that she received Rs. 5,00,000/-. Fact remains that the sale deed was registered and the mutation has already been done. Therefore, at this stage, there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondent no. 1.

In so far as the balance of convenience is concerned, since the sale deed has been executed, which records that possession has also been given and mutation in the name of the appellant has been done, it cannot be said that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent no. 1. With regard to irreparable loss, it is not even suggested as to how there will be irreparable loss to the respondent no. 1.

The court below in the impugned order has passed a status quo order. This is some kind of vague order. Who is in possession? Nothing has been decided. The things have been kept open. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. It deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2025 passed in the suit is set aside. The application filed by the respondent no. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code is rejected.