UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SMT. RITA SEN V/S SRI TARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS

NAINITAL, India, March 23 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on Feb. 20:

1. The challenge in this appeal is made to Order dated 02.02.2026, passed in Original Suit No.23 of 2026, Shri Tarun Kumar Vs. Shri Birju and others, by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun ("the Suit"). By the impugned order, passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"). By it, the respondents in the suit including the appellant has been restrained not to interfere into the possession of the respondent no.1/the plaintiff in the suit property and also not to interfere in the construction that is being raised by the respondent no.1.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The suit has been instituted by the respondent no.1 seeking declaration for cancellation of multiple sale-deeds issued in favour the defendants in the suit, including the appellant. The husband of the defendant no.5 in the suit namely, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta executed the sale-deed dated 04.07.2005 and correction deed dated 15.10.2012 in favour of the appellant. Initially the sale-deed was with regard to Khasra No.871-M admeasuring 0.121 Hectare, but by correctiondeed dated 15.10.2012, the Khasra number was replaced from 871 to 872-M. In the suit, schedule of property has been given and the appellant has filed a copy of the sale-deed dated 04.07.2005 and correction-deed dated 15.10.2012. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that the suit property and the schedule of the property included in the sale-deed dated 04.07.2005 in favour of the appellant are one and the same, the boundaries are the same.

4. It is claim of the respondent no.1/the plaintiff that his predecessor in interest had already been sold the property in suit much before it was sold to the husband of the defendant no.5 in the suit, who subsequently, sold the property to the appellant. It is argued that once the property had already been sold to the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1, the same property could not have been sold to the husband of the defendant no.5 in suit. The rights of the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1 had already been crystallized. The vendor had after selling the property to the predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1, had left no interest in the suit property. Therefore, the sale-deed and correction-deed in favour of the appellant have been sought to be cancelled.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2FoHPtDS1Uut%2FlN1hkxubc4zrjn9E5Zd07C0JAhI%2F0Oo&caseno=AO/46/2026&cCode=1&cino=UKHC010024122026&state_code=15&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.