LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-4

SURJEET KAUR Vs. INTERNATIONAL ISHAVASYAM

Decided On March 22, 2012
SURJEET KAUR Appellant
V/S
INTERNATIONAL ISHAVASYAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rishikesh in Original Suit No. 10 of 2010 'Smt. Surjeet Kaur vs. International Ishavasyam Mission' whereby interim injunction application no. 6c-2, moved by the plaintiff/appellants, has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that the plaintiff/appellants instituted the said suit against the defendants/respondents before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Rishikesh seeking cancellation of two sale deeds dated 06.05.2009 and 19.06.2009 on the grounds that the defendants obtained these sale deeds from late Gurdev Singh Sanga, predecessor of the plaintiff/ appellants under misrepresentation, collusion and by playing fraud, without the consent of late Gurdev Singh Sanga and without paying sale consideration to late Gurdev Singh Sanga. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff/appellants moved an interim injunction application paper no. 6c-2. At the time of filing said suit, an ex-parte interim injunction was granted by the Court below restraining the defendant/respondents not to create any third party interest in the property in suit. On being contested by the defendant/respondents, by virtue of the impugned order dated 19.07.2011, the Court below rejected the interim injunction application.

(3.) ON the other hand learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has contended that in the order impugned, the trial Court has clearly mentioned that neither the appellants are the owner nor in possession of the property in dispute. He submitted that the trial Court has rightly rejected the interim injunction of the plaintiff/ appellants, which does not warrant any interference, because the appellants have no cause of action, balance of convenience or irreparable loss. He further submitted that the respondents are the true owner of the property in dispute and no prohibitory injunction can be granted against the true vendor.