Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24255 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2423 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shivshankar Respondent :- Additional District Judge Room No. 13 Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Kumar Singh,Navita Sharma,Pradeep Kumar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition has been field challenging the order dated 26.04.2023 whereby the injunction application filed in the suit filed by the petitioner was rejected as well as the order dated 23.07.2024 whereby the appeal preferred against the refusal of injunction was also dismissed. 3. The suit in question was filed by the petitioner claiming that he had purchased the property through an unregistered instrument and it was alleged that he was in possession of the property for more than 16 years and a prayer was made that the defendants to the suit be restrained from Sehan land of the property of the petitioner through use of force. The injunction application filed alongwith the suit came to be dismissed mainly on the ground that the petitioner claims to be the owner by virtue of an unregistered document and held that on the basis of the pleadings, the petitioner could not establish or prima- facie prove his title, as such, the injunction was refused. The appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on similar grounds. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a suit solely based upon adverse possession is also maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Meera Awasthi & Anr. vs. Ajeet Awasthi & Anr.; 2024 (2) JCLR 496 (All) wherein this Court had held that the suit filed on the basis of possession without seeking declaration of title was maintainable. It was also held that the possession was a permissive possession and cannot be held as a trespasser. 5. Considering the said judgment and on perusal of the plaint as filed, it is clear that the petitioner had claimed the ownership on the property by virtue of an unregistered document executed in his favour; the suit did not disclose any boundaries. The claim of the petitioner was that the land adjacent to the land owned by the petitioner in which he was in possession was being threatened to be occupied. There was no declaration sought with regard to Sehan land (the land adjacent to the land of the petitioner). 6. It is no doubt true that the suit solely based upon permissive possession is maintainable, however, the suit could not be maintainable for a land which is not purchased by the plaintiff and for which no declaration is sought. 7. In view thereof, no error has been committed by both the Courts below in dismissing the injunction application warranting interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench