VIVEK SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a suit for partition in respect of the disputed property claiming 1/24th share in the same. He also claimed a declaration that the sale deed executed by respondents Nos. 8 to 18 (defendants Nos. 1 to 11 in the suit) executed in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (defendant Nos. 12 to 17 in the suit) be declared null and void, and a prohibitory injunction be issued against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession or raising any construction and changing the nature of the land. Petitioner's case was that the disputed property belonged to his paternal grand father Chittar Mal, who prior to his death in 1960 had executed a will in favour of his wife Smt. Kundania by which he bequeathed the aforesaid property to her. Smt. Kundania died in 1975, and it is alleged that thereafter the property which was initially self-acquired property of Chittar Mal fell in the hotch pot of the joint Hindu family and the petitioner got 1/24th share in the same. The petitioner has alleged that he has resided in the said property. In 1986 came to know that the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 have executed a sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 8 to 18. It is alleged that on 30-5-87 the defendants by exercising coercion have got the petitioner's signature on an agreement to sell his share in the property, and the petitioner has filed the suit in which he also prayed for interim injunction. The prayer for interim injunction was granted by the Civil Judge by his order dated 2-11-91 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), but in appeal the learned District Judge reversed the said order and rejected the prayer for injunction vide his order dated 27-11-1991 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed in this case and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and I am proceeding to dispose of this case finally.

(3.) Admittedly the suit in which the temporary injunction has been rejected by the appellate Court is still pending before the trial Court. I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for several reasons :-