Allahabad High Court
A227/11864/2025 of BIRAJ BHUSHAN SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs ASHU PANKAJ AND 5 OTHERS on 4 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11864 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' petition. Plaintiffs-petitioners had filed Original Suit No.923 of 2022 seeking relief for cancellation of sale deed and also relief for permanent
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11864 of 2025
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This is a plaintiffs' petition. Plaintiffs-petitioners had filed Original Suit No.923 of 2022 seeking relief for cancellation of sale deed and also relief for permanent injunction was sought against defendants-respondents. In the said suit, an application 6-C was moved with a prayer that during pendency of suit, property in dispute be not transferred and no third party right would be created over the land as it is a joint property, and no partition has taken place between co-shares.
2. During pendency of suit, defendants no.1 to 4 have transferred the property in favour of respondents no.5 and 6. The trial Court allowed the 6-C application on 01.11.2022 and directed the parties not to create any third party right till decree of partition is passed. Against the order granting temporary injunction, a misc. civil appeal was preferred by defendants which has been allowed and the order granted by trial Court has been set aside.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners states that the appellate Court could not have passed such order setting aside the order granting injunction to the extent that no third party right would be created till the suit property is partitioned.
4. Sri Neeraj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for defendants fairly submits that no injunction can be granted against true owner, but the order directing for not creating any third party right during pendency of the suit may be maintained. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jyoti Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate, Vishakha Pande Counsel for Respondent(s) : Neeraj Agrawal Biraj Bhushan Sharma And Another .....Petitioner(s) Ashu Pankaj And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. From perusal of order impugned, I find that the appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the order as only the order not creating any third party right has been passed by the trial Court on 6-C application till the partition is made amongst the co-sharers.
7. It is a well settled principle of law that no injunction can be granted against true owner, but property needs to be safeguarded during pendency of the suit where it is an admitted case that the property is jointly held by the parties.
8. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside.
9. Writ petition stands allowed. Parties are directed not to create any third party right over the property in question till the partition is made of suit property between the joint holders. October 5, 2026 SK Goswami A227 No. 11864 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad