Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 135424 (ALL)

JAHID @ MOHD. JAHID v. HONBLE DISTT. JUDGE, BAHRAICH AND ORS.

A227/2289/2025 · 2025-04-24

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23584 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2289 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jahid @ Mohd. Jahid Respondent :- Honble Distt. Judge, Bahraich And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravendra Pratap Singh,Lokendra Kumar Gupta,Mirza Humayun Qadar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 01.02.2025, whereby the injunction was granted to the plaintiff as well as the order dated 11.04.2025, whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. On perusal of the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff to the suit alleged that the plaintiff had purchased the property by virtue of a sale deed dated 24.05.2022. The boundaries as indicated in the sale deed were also mentioned. It was alleged that the defendant was trying to interfere in the property purchased by the plaintiff. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the petitioner herein, there was no assertion that any part of the property of the defendant, which came in his share by virtue of a Will, was sold in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Both the courts, based upon the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as well as absence of any material to demonstrate that any property claimed or owned by the defendant by virtue of a Will was sold by virtue of the said sale deed, granted injunction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the name of the petitioner was mutated by virtue of the Will executed in his favour by his uncle and thus, no construction should have been allowed over the property. 5. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the pleadings in the written statement, wherein no allegations were levelled that the property, which came in favour of the defendant by virtue of a Will, was purchased by the plaintiff. In absence of such pleadings, no error can be found with the two orders warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench