ANIL KUMAR Vs. KUSUM KANAUJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. N. saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Counsel for the caveator/respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be owner of the House No. 2/2481 situated at Narayanpuri Gill Colony, Saharanpur. THE right claimed by the petitioner is on the basis of Will dated 13-3-1985 executed by Jagdish Parasad Jain, father of the petitioner. A copy of the Will is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. On the basis of Will, the petitioner inherited half of the property whereas other half was inherited by his, brother Hans Kumar Jain. THE disputed property, which was in the share of Hans Kumar Jain was let out to the defendant/respondent and subsequently, the property was sold to respondent. THE present dispute relates to one room situated at the first floor of his House No. 2/2481. This room was constructed over the portion, which was sold to the defendant/respondent. THE petitioner claims to be in occupation of the room. THE claim of the petitioner is that sale-deed dated 24-3-1999 in favour of the contesting respondent details the property, which was sold and it does not mention that first floor portion was also sold to her. THE defendant/respondent started to demolish the constructed portion, which she had purchased from the brother of the petitioner. This was objected by the petitioner on the ground that one room situated at the roof of House No. 2/2481 was petitioner's property. In the event, ground floor is demolished, the room in occupation of the petitioner will be demolished and great prejudice will be caused. Subsequently, an original suit No. 228 of 2000 was instituted against the defendant/respondent claiming the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. An application for temporary injunction was also moved by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 19- 10-2000. THE petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 142 of 2000, which also stood dismissed on 3-11- 2005. THE two orders rejecting the application for temporary injunction are impugned in the instant writ petition.

(3.) I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the respective parties. The petitioner has not been able to establish his case for grant of temporary injunction. In the circumstances, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .