Court says long, peaceful possession since 1987 must be protected during pendency of suit; ex parte decree cancelling sale deed did not authorize eviction without due process.
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside a trial court order and granted temporary injunction in favour of Rekha Saxena and another appellant in a long-running property dispute over a residential house in Raebareli.
Justice Prashant Kumar, deciding First Appeal From Order No. 354 of 2025, held that the appellants had shown a prima facie case based on their long, continuous and peaceful possession of the property since 1987 through their predecessor-in-interest. The Court said that even if title is disputed, a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed except by due process of law.
The dispute traces back to a sale deed executed on 22 September 1987 by Augustine Paul, acting under a registered power of attorney. The respondents later claimed that the power of attorney had been revoked earlier, and filed Original Suit No. 100 of 1991 seeking cancellation of the sale deed. Although the suit was later amended to seek removal of construction and delivery of possession, the ex parte decree passed on 21 April 2001 only cancelled the sale deed and restrained further construction. The High Court noted that no decree for eviction or delivery of possession was granted.
The appellants then filed a fresh suit for permanent injunction in 2023, fearing dispossession on the basis of the old decree. Their application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was rejected by the trial court, prompting the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
The High Court found fault with the trial court’s approach, observing that it had failed to properly apply the settled principles governing interim relief. The Court reiterated that temporary injunction is meant to preserve status quo and protect the subject matter of the suit until final adjudication, and that the court at this stage is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or finally decide disputed questions of title.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, the Court held that the appellants had satisfied all three requirements for interim relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The Court also noted that the respondents’ own pleadings in the counter affidavit indicated that the appellants were in possession of the property. Since the property is a residential house and the appellants have allegedly been in possession for more than three decades, the Court said that any forcible disturbance during the pendency of the suit would cause irreparable harm.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s order dated 3 July 2025, and granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellants till disposal of the suit. However, the Court clarified that its observations were limited only to the issue of interim relief and would not affect the merits of the pending trial.
Bottom Line :
Temporary injunction - Long, continuous and peaceful possession since 1987 - Even if title is disputed or sale deed stands cancelled, a person in settled possession cannot be forcibly dispossessed except by due process of law - Ex parte decree cancelling sale deed, not containing any relief of eviction or possession, does not authorize forcible dispossession - Appellate Court can interfere where Trial Court ignores settled principles governing injunction.
Statutory provision(s): Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Order XLIII Rule 1(r), Section 94, Section 104, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 47, Registration Act, 1908
