Court No. 4
Writ Petition No. 24583 of 2010
Chandra Bhan Tiwari & Ors. ------- Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Anita Mittal & Ors. ------- Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Undisputed facts giving rise to the dispute are as under.
Suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners seeking cancellation of the sale deed
said to have been executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 3.
A decree for permanent injunction was also claimed to restrain the defendant-
respondent nos. 1 to 3 from interfering in their peaceful possession over the house
in question and not to dispossess them by force. Suit was filed on the allegations
that the land shown by letters ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’ in the plaint map over which their
existed a ‘kachha’ construction was purchased by Shri Ram Lakhan Tiwari, the father
of the petitioners and respondent no. 4 and thereafter he constructed a two storied
house thereon and the entire sale consideration and the expenses incurred in
construction was made by Shri Ram Lakhan Tiwari and after his death, the
petitioners and defendant-respondent no. 4 became owners in possession, each
having 1/5th share. It was further pleaded that the defendant-respondent no. 4 had
no right or title to execute the sale deed of the entire property. An application for
temporary injunction was also moved.
Both the courts below after considering the entire material and evidence
brought on record by the parties have recorded a finding that the sale deed was
executed by respondent no. 4 on behalf of himself as well as power of attorney of
the plaintiff-petitioner no. 1, which fact has been admitted by the plaintiffs. Both the
courts below have also recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff-petitioners are
not in possession over the suit property as plaintiff no. 1 was residing at the address
which was shown in the power of attorney and the rest of the defendant nos. 2 to 4
are married daughters, who are living with their in-laws. Both the courts below have
further held that their exists a registered sale deed in favour of defendant-
respondent nos. 1 to 3 and unless the same is cancelled by competent court of law
and the plaintiffs being not in possession, temporary injunction cannot be granted
against the defendant-respondents.
No such illegality or infirmity is reflected from the impugned order nor any
such could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the
2
course of argument which may warrant any interference. It is well settled that
finding of fact, recorded by the courts below based on appraisal of evidence, is not
liable to be interfered unless it is demonstrated that they are vitiated either by non-
consideration of any material piece of evidence or based on misreading of evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any such infirmity in the
impugned judgment.
In view of above, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. The
writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed.
03.08.2010
VKS