SANJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. SURYAKALI TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by Mr. Vinay Singh, Additional District Judge, Court No.21, Kanpur Nagar, allowing Misc. Civil Appeal No.103 of 2023 and setting aside the ad interim injunction dtd. 19/9/2023, granted by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar in O.S. No.1341 of 2023.

(2.) The petitioners are the plaintiffs of O.S. No.1341 of 2023, whereas the sole defendant-respondent to this petition is their mother. The property in dispute, that is the suit property, is agricultural land, wherein both the plaintiff-petitioners (for short, 'the plaintiffs') and the defendant-respondent (for short, 'the defendant') hold shares as they claim. The suit property is admittedly undivided. The details of this property are given at the foot of the plaint, giving rise to the suit, whereas in paragraph Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiffs disclose their shares in the suit property and that of the defendant. The cause of action, which the plaintiffs set forth in the plaint, is that the defendant, who is a co-sharer of the plaintiffs and their mother, under the influence of the plaintiffs' sister, Anita Mishra and her husband, with whom, the defendant resides, has transferred an area of 155.33 square yards (125.69 square meters) of land out of Khasra No.164, Khata No.00298, admeasuring a total of 0.3160 hectare, situate at Village Hora Bangar, Tehsil, Pargana and District Kanpur Nagar, vide registered sale deed dtd. 17/9/2019 in favour of one Rajesh and another Deepak. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs and the defendant together, out of the same plot, sold off an area of 75.25 square meters vide registered sale deed dtd. 4/7/2017, but the defendant, in connivance with the plaintiffs' sister, Anit Mishra, has misappropriated the sale consideration. The plaintiffs plead that the defendant has no right to transfer her share in the suit property, which is unpartitioned, unless it is partitioned in accordance with law with the precise shares of parties determined.

(3.) It is also their case that the defendant has offered for sale the suit property jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant, leading to a broker entering upon the said property and attempting to lay a foundation thereon. It is the plaintiffs' case that upon resistance by them, he picked up an altercation, compelling them to report the matter to the Police. Saying that the entire suit property is the joint holding of the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs' case is that the defendant has no right to transfer her share without a partition being effected. It is on the foot of this case and cause of action that the plaintiffs have claimed the following reliefs (translated into English from Hindi):