Tulsi Kushwaha vs Rajkumari Senthiya

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
1 MP-4746-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4746 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030203442026
TULSI KUSHWAHA
Versus
RAJKUMARI SENTHIYA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yash Sharma along with Ms. Ayushi Singh Rana - Advocates for
the petitioner.
Shri Anand Vinod Bhardwaj - Advocate for the respondent No.1, 2
and 3.
Shri Rinkesh Goyal - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.
ORDER
1. The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 takes exception to the order dated 11.07.2026
passed by the Fourth District Judge, Gwalior, in MCA No. 1861/2026
[hereinafter referred to as "Lower Appellate Court"], whereby the appeal
preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 19.02.2026
passed by the Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior [hereinafter
referred to as "Trial Court"] in RCSA No. 530/2025, rejecting the application
for grant of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
2. The petition also challenges the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
2 MP-4746-2026
the learned Trial Court, whereby the application preferred by the

petitioner/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"],
seeking temporary injunction, was rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
questioned civil suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking a decree
of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land
situated at Mauja Harkota, Lashkar, Gwalior, admeasuring 4 Bigha and 11
Biswa. The original owners of the land were Ramprasad and Baldev.
Ramprasad sold his undivided share to Kunwarpal (father of the petitioner)
and Motiram by way of a registered sale deed dated 9-8-1966. The remaining
share was sold to Baba Neemgiri Guru Somwarpuri by way of a registered
sale deed dated 24-04-1967. Thereafter, Baba Neemgiri executed a registered
agreement to sell in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner and also handed
over the possession of the suit land to them.
4. The respondents/defendants, by fraudulently obtaining the thumb
impressions of the petitioner and her family members on certain papers under
the pretext of settling the dispute, started claiming rights over and interfering
with the suit land. Therefore, the petitioner was required to file the instant
suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.
In the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking grant
of temporary injunction was also filed.
5. The respondents/defendants filed their written statement disputing
the claim of the petitioner and also filed a reply to the application for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
3 MP-4746-2026
temporary injunction, contending that the land had already been partitioned

in the year 2002.
6. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 19.02.2026
(Annexure P/6), rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction
filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, mainly on the ground that the Rin Pustika
( ) pertaining to Survey Nos. 2409/2 and 2410 contains the
ऋण पु तका
names of certain other persons who have not been impleaded as parties to the
suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court
also declined to grant temporary injunction on the ground that the documents
placed on record do not prima facie establish the petitioner's possession over
the suit land and, consequently, held that no prima facie case for grant of
temporary injunction was made out in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.
7. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, at
the stage of consideration of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
CPC, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial. The plaintiff is not
required to prove its case to the hilt at the stage of grant of temporary
injunction. Only a prima facie case is required to be established and not
prima facie title.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits
that non-impleadment of the persons whose names are recorded in the Rin
Pustika cannot, by itself, be a ground for rejecting the application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, as the petitioner, being the dominus litis,
has the right to choose the defendants against whom relief is claimed.
9. She further submits that the averments made in the plaint with
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
4 MP-4746-2026
regard to ownership and title over the suit land give rise to a triable issue

which is required to be adjudicated at trial. Therefore, the learned trial Court
erred in not granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. She
further submits that the Lower Appellate Court also erred in law and on facts
in affirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissing the
appeal preferred by the petitioner vide impugned order dated 11.07.2026.
Accordingly, she submits that the orders impugned in the petition deserve
interference and that the parties deserve to be directed to maintain status quo
with respect to the suit property till disposal of the suit.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 1 to 3, while supporting the orders impugned in the petition, submits
that the petitioner is claiming ownership and title over 4 Bigha 11 Biswa of
land forming part of various Khasra numbers, as detailed in paragraph 1 of
the plaint. Admittedly, as per the petitioner's own pleadings, in respect of
half of the suit land, the predecessor of the petitioner had entered into an
agreement to sell, which is not a document of title. That apart, learned
counsel submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that the
suit property had been partitioned between the parties way back in the year
2002 and that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said partition
had also been dismissed. The aforesaid facts have not been disclosed by the
petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submits
that where a suit is filed in respect of a particular piece of land which is
shown to be co-owned by several persons, such persons are required to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
5 MP-4746-2026
impleaded either as plaintiffs, defendants or pro forma defendants. Non-

impleadment of such persons renders the suit not maintainable.
12. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
to 3 that both the Courts below have considered the prayer for grant of
temporary injunction in accordance with the settled principles governing
consideration of such a prayer. Neither has the petitioner been able to
establish a prima facie case or satisfy the other ingredients required for grant
of temporary injunction, nor has the petitioner approached the Court with
clean hands.
13. By referring to the findings recorded by the lower appellate
Court in paragraph 15 of the impugned order, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner has suppressed the facts
relating to partition of the suit land and dismissal of the appeal in the years
2002 and 2013, thereby disentitling himself from claiming the equitable and
discretionary relief of temporary injunction. He submits that this aspect has
also been considered by the lower appellate Court.
14. Accordingly, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits
that, in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below
declining to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner, no case is
made out for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in support
of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:
(i) Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
6 MP-4746-2026
and Another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 142 (paragraph 22);

(ii) Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Another v. Shyam Steel
Industries Limited, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 634 (paragraphs 31 and
36); and
( i i i ) Narendra Hirawat and Company v. Sholay Media
Entertainment Private Limited and Another, reported in (2023) 16 SCC
102 (paragraph 18).
16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted
written submissions in support of the oral arguments advanced.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as
well as the written submissions submitted by petitioner's counsel.
18. The record reveals that the learned Trial Court, by order dated
19.02.2026, rejected the application on the following findings:-
(i) the Rin Pustika relied upon by the petitioner shows names of other
persons alongside the petitioner in Survey Nos. 2409/2 and 2410, who have
not been impleaded;
(ii) no pleading or document has been placed regarding the status of
the remaining survey numbers or the person in possession thereof;
(iii) the petitioner himself has pleaded the suit land to be undivided;
and
(iv) there is no material to show that the respondents intend to
dispossess the petitioner, and the apprehension alone cannot be a ground for
injunction.
19. Thereafter, the Lower Appellate Court examined the documents
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
7 MP-4746-2026
filed by both sides and concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. The

Lower Appellate Court found that, prima facie, the chain of title runs from
Ramprasad and Baldev to Baba Neemgiri, then to Prakashchandra and
others, and then to respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
20. It is the case of the petitioner that non-impleadment of the persons
recorded in the Rin Pustika cannot by itself, be a ground for rejection, as the
petitioner is dominus litis. However, the record reveals that the Trial Court
did not reject the application solely on that ground. Rather, the Trial Court
examined that whether the petitioner had prima facie shown title, case and
possession over the entire suit land of eleven survey numbers, when the
revenue record placed by her shows her name only in two of them, along
with others.
21. Insofar as the agreement to sell dated 11.01.1972 is concerned, the
petitioner’s own case is that it was executed by Baba Neemgiri in favour of
Kunwarpal, Motiram and one Ramratan, and no sale deed followed. Thus,
whether possession was delivered under it; whether Baba Neemgiri had
earlier sold the land as claimed by the respondents are matters requiring
evidence. The agreement cannot, at this stage, constitute a prima facie case
for temporary injunction.
22. Moreover, the Lower Appellate Court also found that the suit land
was partitioned by the Tehsildar on 11.09.2002, that the appeal against it was
dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, and that the petitioner suppressed
these facts and did not approach the Court with clean hands.
23. The relief of temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
8 MP-4746-2026
discretion to grant such relief is exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is

free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands. In that
regard, para 30 of judgment in the case of Seema Arshad Zaheer and Others
v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and Others, 2006 (5) SCC 282 is
reproduced wherein the Apex Court had observed as follows:
"30. The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary
injunction only when the following requirements are made out by
the plaintiff: (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded,
necessitating protection of the plaintiff's rights by issue of a
temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the
plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for
protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the
defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of
the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being
caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In
addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the
discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the
plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court
with clean hands.
[Emphasis Supplied]
24. Moreover, it is the duty of litigants to disclose all material facts
required for the decision-making process of the Court, and the failure to do
so disentitles them from the grant of relief. This aspect has also been
impressed upon by the Apex Court in the case of Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav
and Others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Others ,
2013 (11) SCC 531 wherein it has been observed that:
"44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for
adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of
a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-
making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-
5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is
not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed
the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was
passed or that it has attained finality.
xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
9 MP-4746-2026
46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India
[(2010) 14 SCC 38 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 889] the case law on the
subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come
to the court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and
indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial
forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51, para 21)

“21. The principle that a person who does not come to the
court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the
merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not
entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions
filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but
also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial
forums. The object underlying the principle is that every
court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to protect itself
from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for
truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting
to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing
facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s)
arising in the case.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
25. In the present case, the petitioner has pleaded the land to be
undivided while remaining silent on the partition of 2002 and the dismissal
of her own appeal. He has thereby failed to discharge the duty of disclosure.
The finding of the Lower Appellate Court that he has not approached the
Court with clean hands is based on the record and cannot be faulted. The
petitioner is therefore not entitled to the discretionary relief of temporary
injunction.
26. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the case of Wander Ltd. and
another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727 , wherein the Apex
Court had considered the scope of interference in an appeal arising out of
rejection of temporary injunction by the Trial Court. The relevant paragraph
of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein:
“...the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of
discretion of the Court of first instance and substitute its own
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
10 MP-4746-2026
discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have
been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where
the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant
or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise
of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court
will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion
different from the one reached by the Court below solely on the
ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it
would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has
been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial
manner the fact that the Appellate Court would have taken a
different view may not justify interference with the trial Court’s
exercise of discretion. (Para-14)”

[Emphasis Supplied]
27. A further perusal of the Trial Court’s order dated 19.02.2026
indicates that, upon appreciation of the pleadings and documents placed on
record by the parties, the Trial Court concluded that the petitioner had failed
to prove a prima facie case warranting grant of temporary injunction. On the
question of possession, no pleading or document was found to have been
placed by the petitioner regarding the status of the survey numbers other than
2409/2 and 2410, and the Rin Pustika relied upon by her was found to record
other persons who had not been impleaded. The aforesaid finding has been
affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court by order dated 11.07.2026, which has
also found that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands.
Both the Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court have thus exercised their
jurisdiction to deal with the prayer for injunction on sound principles of law.
This Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of fact leading to the non-
grant of injunction, unless the findings arrived at are perverse in nature [See:
Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, (2010) 2 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33342
11 MP-4746-2026
142]. The findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the first appellate

Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be perverse.
28. In view of the aforesaid consideration, no case for interference is
made out in the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Second Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No. 530/2025, and the order dated
11.07.2026 passed by the learned Fourth District Judge, Gwalior in MCA
No. 1861/2026, impugned in the present petition. Accordingly, the present
petition stands dismissed. Accordingly, the present petition
stands dismissed.
29. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove,
as also those contained in the orders passed by the Courts below, insofar as
they relate to the prima facie consideration of the petitioner's claim, shall
remain confined to the adjudication of the application for temporary
injunction. The learned Trial Court shall decide the pending suit on its own
merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in the present order.
30. Pending application(s), if any stand closed.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VANDANA
VERMA
Signing time: 02-Nov-26
7:09:15 PM