HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2437 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Dr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Subhash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants with a prayer to set aside the order dated 27.7.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lalitpur in Original Suit No.39 of 2026 (Anita Rathore & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) whereby interim injunction application filed by plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, was dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their nomenclature as assigned in the plaint. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the aforesaid suit. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants submitted that a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs, which was registered as Original Suit No.39 of 2026. Said suit was instituted against the State of U.P. and Department of Police, Lalitpur through Superintendent of Police. Disclosing the brief history of the disputed land, it was submitted that Arazi No.3686 was earlier leased out in favour of the plaintiffs' grand father in the year 1940, which was subsequently registered in the year 1942. This lease was a permanent lease which was to be renewed within 30 years or after 99 years. On the said disputed land which was in possession of the plaintiffs, eighteen quarters were constructed by the plaintiffs and were subsequently sold to the police department by means of sale deed executed in the year 1996. The police personnel till date are residing in those quarters. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Subhash Chandra Maurya, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anita Rathore And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. It was submitted that the entire area of the disputed land is 3900 sq. meters out of which 1400 sq. meters consists of construction that is eighteen quarters being used by police for residential purposes. Remaining 2500 sq. meters was an open area out of which 950 sq. meter is within the possession of the plaintiffs. 6. The suit was filed with a prayer to restrain the respondent/defendants from interfering in the possession of the said 950 sq. meters area which is in possession of the plaintiffs. It was submitted that entire disputed land virtually belongs to the plaintiffs since the year 1942 which was leased in favour of the forefather of the plaintiffs by the State Government. It was submitted that trial court while dismissing their prayer for interim injunction has grossly erred in law and without considering the question of possession diverted itself to the issue of title. It went further and even disputed the possession of the plaintiffs which has not been disputed by any of the parties. 7. It was further submitted that the lease for the first time was renewed in the year 1979. The lease was to be renewed either after 30 years or 99 years. An application to declare the lease land as freehold was filed by the plaintiffs on 29.01.1999 and the one fourth of the freehold fees amounting to Rs.69,825/- was paid then and there. However, their application for freeholding the land is still pending but plaintiffs continued to be in possession over the open area of 950 sq. meter. 8. It was contended that the possession of the plaintiffs over the said disputed area of the land is undisputed and same is continuing since 1942. The police department / defendants are illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiffs without adopting due process of law. Even for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the plaintiffs are in illegal possession of the disputed land, the police authorities or any government authorities had no right to dispossess the plaintiffs unless they adopt the procedure prescribed by the law. If there is any illegality in the possession of the plaintiffs, the provision of Public Premises Act can be invoked by the police authorities. But they have no right to use either force or illegal means for dispossessing the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Samir Sobhan Sanjay vs. Track Trade FAFO No. 2437 of 2026 2 Private Ltd. & Ors.; 1996 (4) SCC 144 and Sunkamma (Dead) by Legal Representatives vs. S. Pushpraj (dead) by Legal Representatives; 2018 (12) SCC 647. It was submitted that the impugned order passed by trial court dismissing the injunction application by unnecessarily entering into the question of title is perverse and is liable to be set aside, and that their application seeking temporary injunction in respect of 950 sq. metre land on which they are in possession is liable to be allowed. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. 10. It is admitted fact that the lease in favour of the plaintiffs was executed in year 1942 and continued till 1979. It was also stated that the said lease was further renewed and its renewal now continues for 99 years and their application for freeholding the land is pending since year 1999. But it appears from the perusal of the impugned order that disputed land at present is recorded in favour of the respondents in the revenue records. The said fact has not been disputed by the appellants/plaintiffs. 11. Now, the question arises, if a lease exists and the disputed land forming part of lease also finds mention in Record of Rights, which one of the document will prevail? It can be safely held that the entries in Record of Rights will prevail over any lease deed or other deed conveying possession. The trial court, on basis of the entry in the Record of Rights, has held that the title as well as possession of the plaintiffs is clouded and hence they are not entitled to interim injunction. This Court does not find any illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court. 12. So far as the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, they were carefully perused by me. In the judgment in Sunkamma (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that a plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction, is only required to prove that he is in lawful possession. The 'lawful possession' has a wider import and the said possession cannot be held to be a lawful possession only because it has continued since long. A possession to be lawful must have certain legal right behind it. Unless a plaintiff is not able to establish his title and lawful possession, his possession, whatsoever its FAFO No. 2437 of 2026 3 duration may be, cannot entitle him to seek relief of injunction. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the dispute of title exists between the parties and, in such circumstances, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the interim injunction application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs/appellants. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is upheld. September 9, 2026 SK FAFO No. 2437 of 2026 4 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad