Allahabad High Court
RIZWAN MIYANversusSTATE OF UP AND 19 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
An injunction in respect of joint property is not maintainable without specific evidence of the plaintiff’s possession, and the trial court must order a spot inspection and map before passing a fresh order.
Summary
The appellant, a 1/36th co‑sharer of Gata Nos. 363 and 366 in Bareilly, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his application for a temporary injunction to restrain co‑sharers from interfering with his alleged possession of a shop and flat. He produced the record of rights (Khatauni) showing his ownership and argued that none of the defendants denied his possession. The trial court rejected the injunction on the ground that the appellant had not disclosed how he acquired title and that injunctions in joint property are generally unavailable without clear proof of possession. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to order a spot inspection or obtain a map to ascertain the actual possession of each co‑sharer. It held that a temporary injunction cannot be denied merely on the basis of alleged lack of title when specific evidence of possession is absent, and directed a spot inspection and preparation of a map before a fresh decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted to a co‑sharer in joint property without specific proof of possession of his share.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the injunction application on the ground of alleged failure to disclose title.
- Whether a spot inspection and map preparation are requisite before deciding on an injunction in joint property disputes.
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- joint property
- co‑sharers
- possession
- spot inspection
- civil procedure
- property law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2493 of 2026
Rizwan Miyan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 19 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Agarwal, Raj Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This is the first appeal before this Hon'ble Court against the impugned
order dated 22.8.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Ist, Bareilly, in Original Suit No. 151 of 2026.
3. A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the revisionist/plaintiff,
which was registered as O.S. No. 151 of 2026 (Rizwan Miyan Vs. State of
U.P. and Others). An application for temporary injunction was also
presented before the learned Trial Court by the revisionist, wherein he
claimed that he is the owner of 1/36th share in Gata Nos. 363 and 366,
situated at Village Harunagla, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bareilly. The
prayer for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Court.
Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.8.2026, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had produced the
record of rights in respect of Gata Nos. 363 and 366. A shop and a flat exist
on the said Gata numbers, and none of the parties, i.e., the defendants, has
denied his possession over the disputed flat and shop. However, his prayer
for injunction was rejected solely on the ground that the plaintiff had failed
to disclose as to how he had acquired title over the disputed flat and shop. It
was urged that none of the defendants had denied his possession over the
disputed shop and flat. There was also no dispute pertaining to the title in
respect of the disputed Gata numbers, as the record of rights had been
produced before the Court and the same also finds mention in the impugned
FAFO No. 2493 of 2026
2
order. However, the learned Trial Court ignored the prima facie case
established by the appellant and dismissed his application seeking temporary
injunction.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order.
6. It is apparent that there are various co-sharers in the disputed land and
that the appellant is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/36th share in the disputed
land, upon which, allegedly, a shop and a flat exist. It is apparent from the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the prayer for temporary
injunction was rejected on the premise that the other co-sharers/defendants
had denied the title and possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the
disputed property. It seems that the Court was impressed by the fact that an
injunction in respect of joint property cannot be granted if the other co-
sharers are also in possession of the disputed property.
7. It is well settled in law that an injunction in respect of joint property is
generally not granted unless the party seeking such injunction is able to
establish his possession over a specified share of the property. From the
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, it appears that no spot
inspection by an Amin was conducted before passing the impugned order.
The appellant/plaintiff has urged before this Court that he is in possession of
the disputed shop and flat and that there is no denial of his title, as the record
of rights/Khatauni records his name.
8. From the foregoing circumstances, this Court is of the view that an
injunction, as such, was not maintainable in favour of the plaintiff. However,
the facts which emerge from a reading of the impugned order indicate that
there are various co-sharers and that certain constructions, including
buildings, etc., have been raised upon the disputed land. In the given
circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that all the co-sharers might be in
possession of their respective claimed shares. In such circumstances, it
would not be proper to reject the prayer for temporary injunction unless
there is specific evidence either showing that the plaintiff is out of
possession or establishing that his specific share over which he is in
possession cannot be determined.
9. In such a situation, the proper course would be to call for a spot
inspection and a map of the disputed property before passing an order on the
application for temporary injunction.
FAFO No. 2493 of 2026
3
10. In the given circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 22.8.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ist,
Bareilly, in Original Suit No. 151 of 2026 is hereby set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to call for a spot
map prepared by the Amin in the presence of the parties within one month
from the date of this order and thereafter pass a fresh order on the
application for temporary injunction, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to both the parties
September 8, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…