JAI RAM DASversusDIGVIJAY SINGH AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1341 of 2022

Jai Ram Das
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Digvijay Singh And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                 :   Hausihla Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                :   Arvind Prabodh Dubey

Court No. - 50
                      HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Arvind Prabodh
Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed
challenging the order dated 21.05.2022 whereby the injunction
application preferred by the appellant as a plaintiff came to be rejected.

3. The facts that emerge from the documents on record reveal that Suit
No.395 of 2021 was filed alleging that the plaintiff - the appellant herein -
is in possession of a property by virtue of a registered agreement dated
22.11.2010 which was granted by the respondents/land owner to the
plaintiff for running a brick kiln for a period of 8 years. The said
agreement subsisted till 21.05.2018. Subsequently, in terms of the suit it
was claimed that as some money was required by respondents/owner, an
amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and some other amount was paid to the owner.
Total Rs.2,00,000/- was paid which was admitted by the owner by virtue
of a notary agreement dated 04.04.2013. It was further stated that
subsequently an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was further given and based
upon the said amounts given, the lease stood extended up to 21.05.2026.

4. Based upon the aforesaid, an injunction was sought seeking a decree of
mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the
functioning of the brick kiln and from evicting the plaintiff except in
accordance with law The said suit was contested by the owner. After
exchange of pleadings in the injunction application, an order came to be
                                                        FAFO No. 1341 of 2022
                               2


passed on 21.05.2012 wherein a prima-facie case was not found in favour
of the plaintiff and findings that there was no prima-facie case, there was
no balance of convenience or irreparable loss which could not be
compensated in terms of the money were recorded and thus, the
injunction application came to be rejected.

5. Against the said order, present appeal was preferred in the year 2022.
No interim order has been granted by this Court in favour of the
appellant.

6. It also bears from record that some counter claim was filed by the
respondents in which another order has been passed by the trial Court
whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo.

7. While arguing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
could not disclose any material to suggest that the finding with regard to
lack of prima-facie case is either erroneous or without substance.
Admittedly, the appellant is continuing in possession after the expiry of
the lease without any authority of law and based upon some oral
understanding. The said understanding cannot partake the character of an
agreement prescribed under the Transfer of Property Act and is also
barred by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant
is ready and willing to vacate the premises if some reasonable time is
granted as substantial investments have been made in erecting the brick
kiln. It is prayed that three months' time be granted to vacate the
premises.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same,
however, he prays that some reasonable damages should be paid by the
appellant for occupation of the premises for a period of three months.

10. In view thereof, appellant is granted time to vacate the premises under
his occupation being the suit property as inscribed in Suit No.395 of 2021
(New No.59 of 2022) on or before 31.08.2026, subject to the appellant
filing an undertaking before the Court concerned in Suit No.59 of 2022
within three weeks from today agreeing to vacate the premises on or
                                                                                          FAFO No. 1341 of 2022
                                                                  3


                                    before 31.08.2026 and to handover the vacant and physical possession to
                                    the landlord and to no one else and further payment of the amount of
                                    Rs.1,00,000/- per month as damages.

                                    11. The said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages shall be paid to the
                                    respondents or deposited in the Court concerned within a period of three
                                    months from today which shall be released in favour of the landlord.

                                    12. In view of the said undertaking, it will be open to the trial Court to
                                    decide the said suit itself based upon the said undertaking, if so deemed
                                    appropriate.

                                    13. The appeal stands disposed off in above terms.



                                                                                           (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    nishant




Digitally signed by :-
NISHANT MOHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad