IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH

SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Pronounced on: 25th OCTOBER, 2017
IA No.9303/2017 in CS(OS) 2083/2012

SH. YOGESH SINGH ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Shashank Diwakar (Advocate)

versus

SH. DHARAMDAS & ORS ..... Defendants

Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar Singh, Advocate for D-1.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for D-2.
Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Advocate, Mr. Vipin K. Mittal, Advocate & Mr. Anshul
K. Mittal, Advocate for D-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

G.P. MITTAL,J.

IA No.9303/2017 (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) by Plaintiff

1. This suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiff initially
against Defendants no.1 to 3 with the averments that the Plaintiff is
absolute owner of property measuring 3157 sq. yds comprising Khasra
no.263, Village Saraura, Lucknow which was purchased by the Plaintiff
from one Yadram on the basis of various documents including Agreement
to Sell and General Power of Attorney. Entire sale consideration having
been paid to the earlier said Yadram, the physical possession of the suit
property and also the original documents executed by one Bhagwat Singh
in favour of Yadram was also handed over to the Plaintiff.
2. Defendants no.1 and 2 are the sons of said Bhagwat Singh. It is the case
of the Plaintiff that on 24.09.2008, it transpired that Defendant no.3 in
conspiracy and at the behest of Defendants no.1 and 2 visited the suit
property and wanted to grab the suit property. Again, an attempt was
made by the Defendants on 28.09.2012 to take possession of the suit
property forcibly.

3. By an order dated 01.10.2012, an ex parte interim injunction was granted

in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants restraining them from
taking forcible possession of the suit property.

4. It is further the case of the Plaintiff that in violation of the order dated
01.10.20012, the Defendants took possession of the suit property forcibly.

5. It has been stated that Defendant no.3 is in possession of 1500 sq. yds of
the suit property and the remaining of the property is in possession of
other persons who have not been impleaded as a party. Since the property
was claimed by Defendant no.3 from Yadram, by an order dated
12.09.2014 he was ordered to be impleaded as a party.

6. At this stage, this Court would not go into the questions whether the
Plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as claimed, whether he had
really been sold the suit land by Yadram, Defendant no.4 and whether he
was in possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. The
Plaintiff seeks amendment of the plaint stating that Defendant no.3
forcibly took possession of the suit property sometime between
04.10.2012 to 10.10.2012. It is further averred that Defendant no.3 claims
to have purchased land measuring 1500 sq. yds out of suit property from
Yadram by an agreement to sell dated 10.09.2012 and also claims
possession from 10.09.2012. The Plaintiff wants to make all these
averments by amendment and now seeks a decree of declaration also.

7. Plaintiff showed all the relevant documents to the case which includes
letter by “Lucknow Development Authority” (documents of transfer of
property by the development authority) to the Bhagwat singh.

8. And the he showed the ‘transfer document’ by Bhagwat Singh to himself

(Plaintiff), (with the proper Khasra Khatauni no.).
9. The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is fixed
at Rs:50,00,000/- approximately. And the plaintiff is ready to pay the
court fee as per order of the court.

10. The parties reside in Lucknow and suit property is also situated in
Lucknow, hence this honorable court has jurisdiction to entertain and
adjudicate upon the matter.

OCTOBER 25, 2017

 PRAYER

It is therefore respectfully prayed that the Property should be legally entitled

to Mr. Yogesh Singh (plaintiff). As my client is having all the relevant
documents which are required to the case, and all the documents are original
by the most possible authenticity.

It is further prayed that please allow the ‘permanent injunction’ in favour of

my client (plaintiff), so that defendants may not claim by either way that
particular property as there property.

Plaintiff
(via Advocates)
 VERFIFICATION

Verified on oath at Lucknow on this day 25 of Oct. 2017, that the

contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 are correct to the best of my
knowledge and I belief that, rest of the information are believed to
be true and correct as information received.

Lucknow

Dated: 25.10.2017

Plaintiff

Counsel for the Plaintiff

(Shashank Diwakar)
Advocate