Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22507 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1549 of 2025 Petitioner :- Habib Ahmad And Another Respondent :- Smt. Daraksha And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Rishi Bhushan Jauhari,Sheikh Saaduddin Sazaly Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. 2. Through this writ petition a challenge has been laid to the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Prayagraj on application 6C filed by plaintiff respondent no. 1 and the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC, Court No. 2, Prayagraj in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2023 filed by defendant petitioner no. 1 dismissing the appeal. 3. Facts, in nutshell, are that one Shamim Bano was owner in possession of the property in dispute. She unfortunately died on 15.04.2011 leaving behind her husband and three daughters. Petitioner no. 1, who is husband of Shamim Bano, got the property mutated in his name and, thereafter, sold the same to petitioner no. 2. One of the daughters plaintiff respondent no. 1 instituted Civil Suit No. 625 of 2019 claiming relief of permanent injunction seeking defendants not to interfere in her peaceful possession. During pendency of aforesaid suit an application for grant of temporary injunction was moved which was allowed by the trial court, against which an appeal has been preferred by defendant petitioners which has been dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that injunction could not have been granted by trial court against the petitioners as said suit was filed after the sale-deed was executed by petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner no. 2. He further contends that the suit has been practically allowed by trial court as injunction has been granted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that plaintiff respondent no. 1 is daughter of Shamim Bano, who unfortunately died on 15.04.2011. The property in question was recorded in her name and after her death petitioner no. 1 had got transferred his name without getting the names of daughters mutated in revenue records. The suit has been preferred by one of daughters of Shamim Bano claiming the relief of permanent injunction. The trial court had granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in possession of plaintiff respondent no. 1. As plaintiff prima facie appears to be the owner in possession over the property in dispute, whose name has not been recorded by petitioner no. 1, one of the defendant in suit, the trial court has rightly passed the injunction order, which has been confirmed by the appellate court. 6. From perusal of the sale-deed, it is clear that petitioner no. 1 has illegally transferred the entire property in favour of petitioner no. 2 as he was not competent to do so as he could have only transferred his share to petitioner no. 2, he did not have any right over the shares of his daughters i.e. plaintiff and other defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit. On due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no interference is required with the orders impugned. 7. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad