Allahabad High Court
KARUNA KANTversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The court allowed the amendment and impleadment applications, held that the magistrate lacked jurisdiction, and ordered maintenance of the status quo pending the revision.
Summary
The petitioner sought amendment of the prayer clause and impleadment of a revenue officer as a respondent. Both applications were allowed as the opposite parties raised no objection. The core dispute concerns a co‑owned, un‑partitioned property where the petitioner claims ownership, while the respondents, as subsequent purchasers, assert possession. The petitioner argued that the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to attach the property, contending that a partition suit is required. The court agreed that the magistrate erred and directed that the status quo be maintained pending the pending revision, which must be decided within two months. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether amendment of the prayer clause in the petition is permissible.
- Whether impleadment of the revenue officer as respondent No.5 is permissible.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to order attachment of the co‑owned property.
- Whether the status quo should be maintained pending the decision of the revision.
Subjects
- property dispute
- co‑ownership
- partition suit
- jurisdiction
- attachment
- revision
- status quo
- amendment
- impleadment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11677 of 2026
Karuna Kant
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avatans Mishra, Ram
Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
In Re:Amendment Application No.2 of 2026
This is an application for amendment of in the prayer clause of
the petition.
Learned counsel for opposite parties has no objection.
The amendment application is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out during course of the
day.
In Re:Impleadment Application No.4 of 2026
This is an application for impleadment of Upziladhikari,
Tehsil-Aurai, District Bhadohi as respondent no.5.
Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 has no objection.
The impleadment application is allowed.
Let necessary impleadment be carried out during course of the
day.
In Memo of Petition
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after
A227 No. 11677 of 2026
2
the death of his father the property devolved in three brothers.
The property in question is a un-partitioned property being
Arazi no.89, although the petitioner and his brothers were
living in different parts of the property in question. However,
there was no formal partition deed. The respondent nos.2 to 4
has purchased the aforesaid property and the respondent nos.2
to 3 are trying to dislodge the petitioner. An order was passed
on 10.7.2026 by the Magistrate concerned fixing the date as
25.7.2026. In the meantime, on 10.7.2026 itself another order
was passed thereby attaching the property in question, against
which, revision was filed. The revisional court has rejected the
stay application on the ground that the petitioner is claiming his
land in Arazi no.87.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted
fact that the petitioner is co-owner of the property in question
in respect of which a civil suit is already pending. Therefore,
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to enter the
matter and the respondent nos.2 to 4 being the subsequent
purchaser was required to file the partition suit.
Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the
respondent nos.2 to 4 is the subsequent purchaser of the
property from one of the co-owners. The petitioner was
claiming possession in Arazi no.87, as a result of the same, the
revisional court has rejected the stay application.
It is to be seen that the petitioner being the original co-owner of
the property and respondent no.2 being the subsequent
purchaser, it is for the respondent no.2 to claim possession of
the property in question through lawful proceedings or by
partition of the property. The trial court has erred in law in
considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, since the revision is pending before the revisional
court, this Court is of the view that the revisional court may
A227 No. 11677 of 2026
3
decide the revision within a period of two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order.
Till the decision of the revision, status quo in respect of the
property in question as existing today shall be maintained by
the parties.
The present petition stands disposed of.
September 8, 2026
Bhaskar
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…