Uttarakhand HC Upholds Denial of Interim Injunction to Land Heirs Neither in Possession Nor Recorded as Holders

The petitioners sued for permanent injunction, claiming that the disputed land had belonged to late Ramlal and had devolved upon them.

The trial court granted their application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, relying on their recorded-tenure-holder status.

On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed that order, finding that material facts had not been disclosed.

The petitioners challenged the appellate order by writ petition.

Before the High Court, it was admitted that the petitioners were not then recorded tenure holders or in possession.

The record also disclosed an earlier suit lost by Ramlal concerning Plot Nos. 909 and 927, pending title suits under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and a challenge to the mutation order in the petitioners’ favour.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC govern temporary injunctions.

The applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and a likelihood of irreparable loss if relief is refused.

The Court applied these requirements to the petitioners’ asserted rights and circumstances, including their recorded status, possession, and disclosure of material facts.

The petitioners were neither recorded tenure holders nor in possession of the disputed land; the revenue record stood in others’ names.

The Court therefore found no prima facie case.

It also noted the non-disclosure of Ramlal’s earlier unsuccessful suit, the pending Section 229-B title suits, and the challenge to the mutation order.

In the absence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not favour the petitioners, and they had not shown that refusal of the injunction would cause irreparable loss.

The appellate court had accordingly acted correctly in dismissing the injunction application.

The writ petition was dismissed.