Allahabad High Court
SMT. PUSHPA DEVI @ PUSHPA SHUKLA AND 2 ORS.versusSHREEKRISHNA
- Decided
Holding
The appellate court held that the trial court's order directing the parties to maintain status quo did not warrant interference.
Summary
The dispute concerned ownership and possession of a house inherited from the deceased Sri Ram Kishore Tiwari. Two wills were executed by the deceased, the earlier (1984) granting a life interest to his wife and thereafter to his daughter and grandchildren, and a later (2008) revoking the earlier will and vesting absolute ownership in his daughter, Pushpa Devi. Pushpa Devi later executed a gift deed in favour of her daughter Neha Shukla, while the plaintiff, Shreekrishna, claimed possession of the house. The trial court, without adjudicating the validity of the wills or the gift deed, ordered both parties to maintain the status quo pending trial. On appeal, the High Court held that the trial court correctly applied the principles of interlocutory relief, noting that the plaintiff’s possession was an admitted fact and that the title issues were to be decided at trial, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in granting a status‑quo order without applying the test for a temporary injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss).
- Whether the validity of the 2008 will and the 2014 gift deed could be determined at the interlocutory stage.
- Whether the plaintiff’s existing possession entitled him to a status‑quo order despite pending title disputes.
Subjects
- property dispute
- will
- gift deed
- temporary injunction
- status quo
- inheritance
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 263 of 2016
Smt. Pushpa Devi @ Pushpa Shukla And 2 Ors.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Shreekrishna
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Saurabh Raj
Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Misra, Arvind Srivastava,
Avinash Jaiswal, Bhanu Bhushan
Jauhari, Mayank Pratap Singh, Rahul
Agarwal
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and Sri
Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for respondent.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
29.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad,
in Original Suit No. 106 of 2015 (Sri Krishna Vs. Pushpa Shukla and 2
Others), as well as the formal order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, in the aforesaid suit.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to
by their respective nomenclature as assigned in the original suit, i.e., the
appellants as the defendants and the respondent as the plaintiff.
4. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is undisputed that the
dispute between them relates to the ownership and possession of House No.
502/2/12, Allapur, District Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the
"disputed property"). It is admitted that the disputed property belonged to Sri
Ram Kishore Tiwari, who was the father of defendant No. 1, Smt. Pushpa
Devi, and the maternal grandfather of the respondent, Sri Krishna, and
defendant No. 2, Smt. Neha Shukla. Shri Krishna and Smt. Neha Shukla are
the son and daughter, respectively, of defendant No. 1, Smt. Pushpa Devi
Tiwari.
5. According to the pleadings, late Sri Ram Kishore Tiwari executed a
FAFO No. 263 of 2016
2
registered Will on 08.05.1984, making a disposition of the disputed property.
It was provided therein that he would remain the absolute owner of the
property during his lifetime and, after his death, the property would devolve
upon his wife, Smt. Raji Devi, provided she was alive at the time of his
death. It was further provided that, after the death of his wife, the entire
property would devolve upon his daughter, Smt. Pushpa Devi, and her son
and daughter, namely, Sri Krishna and Smt. Neha Shukla, subject to the
condition that Smt. Pushpa Devi would have no right to sell the property and
would have only a life interest therein.
6. Thereafter, another registered Will was executed by late Sri Ram
Kishore Tiwari on 19.12.2008, whereby he cancelled his earlier Will dated
08.05.1984. In the subsequent Will, it was provided that, after his death, the
entire property would devolve upon his wife, Smt. Raji Devi, without any
right to sell or otherwise dispose of the said property, although she could
utilise the same for her maintenance. It was further provided that, after the
death of his wife, the property in question would devolve upon his daughter,
Smt. Pushpa Devi, who would become the absolute owner thereof.
7. Thereafter, defendant No. 1, Smt. Pushpa Devi, executed a gift deed in
favour of defendant No. 2, Smt. Neha Shukla, on 23.06.2014. The
respondent thereafter instituted the present suit seeking a decree of
permanent injunction. In the meantime, he also moved an application for
temporary injunction with a prayer to restrain the defendants from evicting
him from the disputed property. The said application was decided by the
learned trial court by order dated 29.10.2015, whereby both the parties were
directed to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property.
8. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2015, the present appeal has been
preferred. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the order
directing both the parties to maintain status quo is unsustainable and
contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of temporary
injunction. Before granting a temporary injunction, the court is required to
consider the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and
the likelihood of irreparable loss. It is submitted that the learned trial court
failed to consider any of these factors and directly passed an order directing
the parties to maintain status quo, without considering that the said order
would cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the defendants, who claim to
be the true owners of the disputed property on the basis of the subsequent
Will executed by its owner on 19.12.2008.
FAFO No. 263 of 2016
3
9. It is further submitted that, by passing the impugned order, the learned
trial court has disregarded the settled principles governing temporary
injunctions and has effectively granted protection against the true owners of
the property. The documents relied upon by the parties, namely, the two
Wills and the gift deed, demonstrate, according to the appellants, that the
respondent has no right or title to remain in possession of the disputed
property. It is submitted that, prior to the execution of the gift deed, the
respondent was residing in the said house only by virtue of being the son of
defendant No. 1, Smt. Pushpa Devi. However, his conduct subsequently
changed and he started misbehaving with her and other family members.
10. It is further submitted that the misbehaviour of the respondent
compelled late Sri Ram Kishore Tiwari to cancel his earlier Will dated
08.05.1984. Therefore, the relief granted by the learned trial court in favour
of the respondent would, according to the appellants, result in further
misbehaviour and mistreatment towards the true owner of the property. In
the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted that the order passed by the
learned trial court is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that
the learned trial court, by its order, has merely directed both the parties to
maintain status quo. The respondent has been residing in the disputed house
from the very beginning and continues to reside therein. Therefore, the
appellants cannot seek a prohibitory temporary injunction against a party
who is already in possession of the disputed property. It is, accordingly,
submitted that the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order
passed by the learned trial court.
13. The learned trial court, in its impugned order, has observed that the
defendants themselves have admitted in their pleadings that the
respondent/plaintiff is residing in the disputed property. It is manifest from
the aforesaid observation of the learned trial court that the possession of the
respondent/plaintiff over the disputed house has been admitted by the
appellants/defendants in their written statement.
14. It has further been observed that, although the defendants claimed to
have got their names mutated in the municipal records in respect of the
disputed house on the basis of the gift deed dated 23.06.2014, they were
FAFO No. 263 of 2016
4
unable to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof. The learned
trial court further held that the validity of both the Wills as well as the gift
deed is a matter to be adjudicated upon during the trial and, therefore, at this
stage, no finding could be recorded with regard to their validity.
15. It was on the aforesaid basis that the learned trial court passed the
impugned order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the
disputed property.
16. Having considered the findings recorded by the learned trial court, this
Court is also of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference in the present appeal. Although the
registered Will dated 19.12.2008 executed by late Sri Ram Kishore Tiwari in
favour of appellant/defendant No. 1 and the gift deed executed by
appellant/defendant No. 1 on 23.06.2014 in favour of appellant/defendant
No. 2 prima facie support their claim with regard to the disputed property,
the continuous habitation and possession of the respondent/plaintiff therein
is also an admitted fact.
17. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned trial court, in
directing the parties to maintain status quo, has neither committed any
illegality or irregularity nor acted perversely. The impugned order, therefore,
does not call for any interference by this Court.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
September 25, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…