HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6153 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Manuvendra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dheeraj Ojha, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has impleaded the State of U.P. as an opposite party whereas the present proceedings arise out of a civil suit in which the State is not a party. Therefore, the State Of U.P. is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the present proceedings and it has been impleaded wrongly. The petition suffers from the defect of mis-joinder of parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepted that the State has been impleaded erroneously. However, keeping in view the nature of the relief sought and the order proposed to be passed, the petition is not being dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties. 4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the District Judge, Pratapgarh to decide the temporary injunction application filed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.67 of 2025 in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moolchand Yadav v. Raja Buland Sugar Mill Ltd. (1982) 3 SCC Page 484. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the private opposite parties to maintain the status-quo over the disputed land bearing gata No.70 situated at Village-Padripal Pargana/Tehsil Patti, Kohdaur, Pratapgarh. 5. The petitioner and his brother- the opposite party No.7 Shivram, have filed Regular Suit No.145 of 2023 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pratapgarh praying for a declaration that a sale deed dated 28.09.2000 executed by the petitioner's father Ram Dular- opposite party No.4 to the petition in favour of Smt. Usha Devi (the opposite party No.3 to the petition) to declared null and void and a decree for perpetual injunction be issued restraining the persons who have purchased land from Smt. Usha Devi through a sale deed dated 10.07.2018 from interfering in possession of the petitioner in respect of the property in dispute. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manuvendra Singh, Shubham Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Seetaram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. It was pleaded in the plaint that the land in question belongs to a Hindu undivided family and the petitioner's father has no authority to execute the sale deed. 7. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted during arguments that the sale deed is illegal as it was executed deceitfully by taking his father in the garb of witnessing execution of some deed and he had not knowingly executed the sale deed, there is no such pleading in the plaint and it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced factual submissions which are not supported with the pleadings of the petitioner and which are misleading. 8. The petitioner's father filed a written statement admitting the pleas taken by the petitioner in the plaint and apparently, the written statement of the petitioner's father is collusive when he himself has not come forward to challenge the sale deed executed by him in the year 2000. 9. In the written statement filed by the purchaser, it was stated that after purchase of the property in the year 2000, some construction was raised thereon but thereafter, due to illness of the purchaser and some other problems, the construction could not be completed. When further construction was sought to be raised, the petitioner started interfering in it. 10. A copy of the registered sale deed executed by the petitioner's father in the year 2000 has been annexed with the petition, wherein it is recorded that he had received sale consideration amounting to Rs.80,000/- and had handed over the property. The Sub-Registrar has made an endorsement on the sale deed that Rs.80,000/- were paid to the seller as sale consideration and in presence of the Sub-Registrar. 11. As per the provisions contained in Sections 58 to 60 of the Registration Act, the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar shall be presumed to be correct. 12. In these circumstances, the petitioner does not have a prima facie case for claiming an injunction restraining the purchaser from interfering in his possession. 13. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to grant the prayer of the petitioner for restraining the private opposite parties from interfering in his possession. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the ration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moolchand Yadav (supra) does not apply to the present case and there is no good ground to issue any direction to the District Judge, Pratapgarh to decide the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner in Misc. Civil Appeal No.67 of 2025. 15. The petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. October 16, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 6153 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench