HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2493 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is the first appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the impugned order dated 22.8.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ist, Bareilly, in Original Suit No. 151 of 2026. 3. A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the revisionist/plaintiff, which was registered as O.S. No. 151 of 2026 (Rizwan Miyan Vs. State of U.P. and Others). An application for temporary injunction was also presented before the learned Trial Court by the revisionist, wherein he claimed that he is the owner of 1/36th share in Gata Nos. 363 and 366, situated at Village Harunagla, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly. The prayer for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.8.2026, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had produced the record of rights in respect of Gata Nos. 363 and 366. A shop and a flat exist on the said Gata numbers, and none of the parties, i.e., the defendants, has denied his possession over the disputed flat and shop. However, his prayer for injunction was rejected solely on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to disclose as to how he had acquired title over the disputed flat and shop. It was urged that none of the defendants had denied his possession over the disputed shop and flat. There was also no dispute pertaining to the title in respect of the disputed Gata numbers, as the record of rights had been produced before the Court and the same also finds mention in the impugned Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Agarwal, Raj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rizwan Miyan .....Appellant(s) State Of Up And 19 Others .....Respondent(s) order. However, the learned Trial Court ignored the prima facie case established by the appellant and dismissed his application seeking temporary injunction. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 6. It is apparent that there are various co-sharers in the disputed land and that the appellant is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/36th share in the disputed land, upon which, allegedly, a shop and a flat exist. It is apparent from the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the prayer for temporary injunction was rejected on the premise that the other co-sharers/defendants had denied the title and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the disputed property. It seems that the Court was impressed by the fact that an injunction in respect of joint property cannot be granted if the other co- sharers are also in possession of the disputed property. 7. It is well settled in law that an injunction in respect of joint property is generally not granted unless the party seeking such injunction is able to establish his possession over a specified share of the property. From the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, it appears that no spot inspection by an Amin was conducted before passing the impugned order. The appellant/plaintiff has urged before this Court that he is in possession of the disputed shop and flat and that there is no denial of his title, as the record of rights/Khatauni records his name. 8. From the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the view that an injunction, as such, was not maintainable in favour of the plaintiff. However, the facts which emerge from a reading of the impugned order indicate that there are various co-sharers and that certain constructions, including buildings, etc., have been raised upon the disputed land. In the given circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that all the co-sharers might be in possession of their respective claimed shares. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to reject the prayer for temporary injunction unless there is specific evidence either showing that the plaintiff is out of possession or establishing that his specific share over which he is in possession cannot be determined. 9. In such a situation, the proper course would be to call for a spot inspection and a map of the disputed property before passing an order on the application for temporary injunction. FAFO No. 2493 of 2026 2 10. In the given circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.8.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ist, Bareilly, in Original Suit No. 151 of 2026 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to call for a spot map prepared by the Amin in the presence of the parties within one month from the date of this order and thereafter pass a fresh order on the application for temporary injunction, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties September 8, 2026 Mukesh FAFO No. 2493 of 2026 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad