Ruling on the sanctity of settled possession and the rule of law, the Allahabad High Court has held that a rightful owner cannot forcibly evict an occupant in long-standing possession without following due process of law, even if the underlying sale deed has been cancelled by a civil court. Setting aside an order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raebareli, a single-judge bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar allowed a First Appeal From Order and granted a temporary injunction protecting a widow and her minor daughter from dispossession from their residential premises during the pendency of their injunction suit.
The Court observed that a decree merely cancelling a sale deed and restraining further construction does not automatically entitle the decree-holder to dispossess occupants without an express decree or order of eviction from a competent court.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to June 2, 1987, when a registered Power of Attorney was executed in favour of one Augustine Paul, authorizing him to sell the subject property. On September 18, 1987, the Power of Attorney was purportedly cancelled. However, before the cancellation was registered, Augustine Paul executed a registered sale deed on September 22, 1987, in favour of Late Savitri Srivastava, the mother-in-law of Appellant No. 1, Rekha Saxena. The cancellation deed of the Power of Attorney was subsequently registered on September 29, 1987. A residential house was subsequently constructed on the land, where the appellants continued to reside.
In 1991, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Allahabad Private Ltd. instituted Original Suit No. 100 of 1991 before the Civil Judge, Raebareli, seeking cancellation of the 1987 sale deed on the premise that the Power of Attorney had been revoked prior to execution. The suit was later amended to seek the removal of constructions and delivery of possession. On April 21, 2001, the trial court decreed the suit ex-parte, cancelling the sale deed dated September 22, 1987, and permanently restraining the defendant from raising further construction on Plot No. 10. Crucially, the trial court did not grant any decree or relief for delivery of possession or eviction.
The decree of the ex-parte judgment was prepared after a delay of nearly 22 years, on April 7, 2023. Relying on this decree, the respondents initiated execution proceedings and sought the eviction of the appellants with the assistance of the district administration.
Facing an imminent threat of eviction, Rekha Saxena and her minor daughter filed Regular Suit No. 238 of 2023 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raebareli, seeking a permanent injunction to protect their possession, alongside an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). On July 3, 2025, the trial court dismissed the temporary injunction application, holding that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case because their title deed had already been cancelled. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants, Sri Sridhar Awasthi, submitted that the appellants and their predecessor-in-interest had been in continuous, peaceful, and settled possession of the suit property since 1987. He argued that on the date the sale deed was executed, no registered cancellation of the Power of Attorney was in effect. Furthermore, the trial court in 2001 chose not to grant any relief of possession or demolition, confining itself strictly to cancelling the deed and prohibiting further construction.
The appellants also contended that the trial court committed grave errors by misquoting and relying on non-existent sentences in Supreme Court decisions, including Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh and Kashi Math Sansthan v. Srimad Sudhindra Teerth Swami. Citing Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, Dalpat Kumar, and Shruti Mahav Sharma v. Sumera Singh, counsel argued that a prima facie case in an injunction plea relates to an actionable issue and settled possession, rather than an unassailable declaration of title.
Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocate Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, representing the respondents, argued that under Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, a registered document operates from the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Ragini Narayan, he contended that because the Power of Attorney was cancelled on September 18, 1987, its subsequent registration on September 29 related back, rendering the agent devoid of any authority to execute the sale deed on September 22, 1987.
He further submitted that the sale deed stood cancelled by a competent civil court in 2001, extinguishing any prima facie case or title in favour of the appellants. In rejoinder, the appellants pointed out that the respondents themselves, in paragraphs 37 and 38 of their counter-affidavit, admitted that the appellants were in physical occupation of the premises and that steps had been initiated before the District Magistrate to dispossess them.
Analysis of the Court
Justice Prashant Kumar examined the statutory scheme under Section 94(c) read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, emphasizing that interlocutory injunctions are fundamentally preservative in character. Citing the classic formulations from the House of Lords in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. and the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and Zenit Mataplast Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that temporary injunctions are designed to preserve the status quo so that the eventual suit does not become an exercise in futility.
The Court referred to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh to clarify the distinction between prima facie case and title, quoting:
“Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits.”
Addressing the appellate court’s scope of review over discretionary orders under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court reviewed decisions in Printers (Mysore) (P) Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. v. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., and Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, reiterating that interference is warranted when the subordinate court exercises discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely by ignoring settled legal principles.
Invoking the Latin maxim “Possessio contra omnes valet praeter eum cui ius sit possessionis” (possession is valid against everyone except the person who has the true legal right to possess it), the High Court underscored that under Indian law, even a rightful owner cannot dispossess a trespasser or occupant in settled possession by force.
Reiterating the benchmarks of settled possession articulated in Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, Ram Rattan v. State of U.P., and Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs., the Court observed:
“Thus, this court has no embargo to hold that even where the person in long standing possession and is alleged to be a trespasser, the majesty of law cannot be supplanted by the impulse of force. Due process of law must be followed for his eviction; the rightful owner, however strong his title or just his claim, must seek the aid of law and cannot take the law into his own hands. Possession can only be disturbed only by due procedure sanctioned by law i.e., any direction or order for eviction or dispossession from competent court.”
Highlighting the Supreme Court’s verdict in Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trade (P) Ltd., the Court cited:
“The court cannot blink at their unlawful conduct to dispossess the appellant from the demised property and would say that the status quo be maintained. If the court gives acceptance to such high-handed action, there will be no respect for rule of law and unlawful elements would take hold of the due process of law for ransom and it would be a field day for anarchy. Due process of law would be put to ridicule in the estimate of the law-abiding citizens and rule of law would remain a mortuary.”
Applying these principles, the High Court noted that the 2001 ex-parte decree was strictly confined to cancelling the sale deed and barring additional constructions, omitting any order for eviction. Consequently, the respondents could not resort to coercive dispossession under that decree.
Evaluating the three essential conditions for interim relief, the Court held:
- Prima Facie Case: The appellants established a prima facie case rooted in their uninterrupted, peaceful, and settled possession since 1987, a fact also admitted in the respondents’ pleadings.
- Balance of Convenience & Irreparable Injury: Appellant No. 1 is a widow and Appellant No. 2 is a minor daughter residing in their residential home of over three decades. Forcible dispossession during the suit’s pendency would cause irreparable injury that could not be compensated in monetary terms.
Decision of the Court
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s order dated July 3, 2025. It granted a temporary injunction in favour of the appellants, restraining interference with their possession during the pendency of Regular Suit No. 238 of 2023 before the trial court.
The Court clarified that its findings were strictly limited to the adjudication of the temporary injunction application and should not be construed as an opinion on the underlying merits of the suit or the validity of the Power of Attorney. The trial court was directed to decide the suit independently based on evidence.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rekha Saxena and another v. Roman Catholic Diocese, Allahabad Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director General the Bishop and another
Case No.: First Appeal From Order No. 354 of 2025
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar
Date: September 23, 2026
