Saurabh Parihar vs Rajeshwar Singh Parihar And Ors

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs :-

"1. The impugned order i.e. Annexure 5 and 3 dated 06.05.2019 and 05.04.2019 be set aside.

The application of the petitioner U/o 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for granting add interim injunction be allowed."

Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction along with the application for temporary injunction against the respondents, who are his parents, and are having the possession of the house situated at Ketanadi Road Mandore measuring 25X80 feet.

Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner got married in the house of his father and was also born in the same house. Learned counsel for the petitioner further claims that the petitioner renovated and repaired the house from time to time and was living in a ground floor using the common hall and was having physical possession of the house in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are number of judgments which entitle the persons having prolonged possession to be protected even if they do not have a proper title. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that view taken by the learned courts below is prejudicial to the petitioner just because the petitioner is the son of the respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further tried to demonstrate through the affidavits, which are on record as Annexure -8 and 9, that the respondent No.1 had consciously permitted the possession and had given permission to the petitioner and his wife to conduct certain activities of business in the premises. It is also contended that Order 41 Rule 27 could not have been invoked by the respondent No.1 and his document could not have been taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that just because they are in a relationship of father and son, the petitioner cannot be prejudiced by the non-application of the powers of temporary injunction by the two courts below, who were required to see only possession and not to permit dispossession of the petitioner in an unlawful manner. It is also contended that number of FIRs were lodged by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner and the acremonious relationship has resulted into the present activity and the petitioner needs to be protected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the precedent laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs Vs. M Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. & Anr. reported in 2004 DNJ (SC) 263 and in Olga Tellies & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 180.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Heera Lal Vs. Municipal Council, Churu & Anr. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.75 of 1992), decided on 07.07.2009, and Smt. Kamla Vs. Chhagni Ram & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1866/2015), decided on 01.07.2015.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perusing the record of the case and precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that two consecutive courts have held that the petitioner is not having any right to be protected under the order of temporary injunction. This Court also finds that the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the persons holding the possession for a long time is the general law pertaining to the possession but it cannot be applied in the case where the father does not want his son to occupy his own premises on the sons conduct. Learned courts below have dealt at length that the title of the property in question is clearly in favour of the respondent No.1 and the learned courts below have also observed that the petitioner has been unable to show that any illegal eviction is being caused.

In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.