ANKIT KUMAR vs SABBRI

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010050072026

2026:UHC:7996

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 99 of 2026

03 September, 2026


Ankit Kumar --Appellant

Versus
Smt. Sabbri and others

--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate for the appellant through video conferencing.

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no. 1.

Mr. Kailash Chandra, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
29.04.2025 passed in Original Suit No. 15 of 2024, Smt. Sabbri v.
Ankit Kumar and others, by the court of Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the suit”), by which
an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff has
been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status
quo.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly
stated, are as follows. The respondent no. 1 filed the suit for
cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.10.2023 executed in favour
of the appellant. It is the case of the respondent no. 1 in the plaint
that she owns a property. In the first week of October, 2023, the
1

UKHC010050072026

2026:UHC:7996
respondent no. 2 approached her and informed that some person
wants to purchase her property, therefore, agreement to sell may
be executed and she would get Rs. 5,00,000/- in advance.
Believing the respondent no. 2, it is the case of the respondent no.
1 Smt. Sabbri in the suit that she signed certain documents
believing that they are agreement to sell and received Rs.
5,00,000/- in advance by way of a cheque. Subsequently, she
came to know that under the garb of the agreement, sale deed
dated 16.10.2023 has been executed in favour of the appellant, for
which cancellation, the suit has been filed.

4. In the suit, an application for temporary injunction
was filed. Objections were filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
no fraud was played on the respondent no. 1; the respondent no. 1
had willingly executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant; Rs.
5,00,000/- was given in advance and the remaining amount has
already been paid to the respondent no. 1, which has been
deposited in her bank account; therefore, there is no question of
fraud. It is argued that after the sale deed, the possession of the
disputed property was also handed over to the appellant and the
appellant has been recorded in the revenue records by mutation
proceedings. Those documents have been referred to also.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
no. 1 submits that the respondent no. 1 is an old woman; she does
not know the niceties of the document’s execution; she was merely
informed by the respondent no. 2 that somebody wants to
2

UKHC010050072026

2026:UHC:7996
purchase her land and an agreement to sell could be executed;
therefore, believing the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 1
signed certain documents considering them as an agreement to
sell; but, subsequently, she came to know that it was, in fact, a
sale deed. It is argued that the respondent no. 1 only received
Rs. 5,00,000/-. Though he admits that in the account of the
respondent no. 1, Rs. 13 lakh was deposited, but, according to
him, the respondent no. 1 received only Rs. 5,00,000/-; she did
not withdraw any amount.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact,
Rs. 13,00,000/- was given by way of instruments and the
remaining amount was given in cash. It was admitted by the
respondent no. 1 in the sale deed.

8. There are basic principles for grant of temporary
prima facie
injunction, which are case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss. In the impugned order, in fact, no discussion as
such has been made. What records in the impugned order is that
that as to who is the owner in possession, this fact will be decided
after evidence. Undoubtedly, final determination will be done after
evidence. But, at the stage of deciding the temporary injunction
application, the court has to appreciate the material to the extent
of examining prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss.

9. In the sale deed, it is stated that the payments were
made and the possession was delivered. It is an admitted case of
the respondent no. 1 that Rs. 13,00,000/- was deposited in her
3

UKHC010050072026

2026:UHC:7996
account. She herself admits that she received Rs. 5,00,000/-. Fact
remains that the sale deed was registered and the mutation has
already been done. Therefore, at this stage, there is no prima facie
case in favour of the respondent no. 1.

10. In so far as the balance of convenience is concerned,
since the sale deed has been executed, which records that
possession has also been given and mutation in the name of the
appellant has been done, it cannot be said that the balance of
convenience is in favour of the respondent no. 1. With regard to
irreparable loss, it is not even suggested as to how there will be
irreparable loss to the respondent no. 1.

11. The court below in the impugned order has passed a
status quo order. This is some kind of vague order . Who is in
possession? Nothing has been decided. The things have been kept
open. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order
is not in accordance with law. It deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
29.04.2025 passed in the suit is set aside. The application filed by
the respondent no. 1 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code is
rejected.



(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
03-09-2026

Avneet/
4