Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Adil Khan, for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Parmanand Shukla, learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6. Through the instant writ petition under Article of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2.8.2010 passed by the opposite party No.1 -District Judge, Raibareli, whereby the order dated 17.3.2010 passed by the opposite party No. 2 -Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.16, Raibareli, has been affirmed.
(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the property described in the plaint, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 881 of 2009, Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was also preferred under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that he solemnized marriage with Smt. Phoolkali, daughter of Banwari Lai. Said Phoolkali, expired on 4.8.2009 but before death she remained with the petitioner as his wife and performed her marital obligations. It was also pointed out that on her death, all last rites were performed by the petitioner and as such the immovable property which has been bequated by her and is in his possession and further his name has also been mutated in the revenue records be allowed to be used in the manner he wishes. On the application for temporary injunction, notices were issued. After the institution and during pendency of the aforesaid suit, opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 filed a separate suit for permanent injunction, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 906 of 2009, against the petitioner along with an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying therein for restraining him from interfering with their alleged possession over the same land which is in dispute in R.S. No. 88 of 2009 filed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that they had acquired the land in dispute under a registered Will dated 31.12.2008 executed by Smt. Phoolkali in their favour and the petitioner is trying to take forcible possession over the same. Notice was also issued and in reply thereof, the petitioner filed his objections along with the counter -affidavit and denied the allegations made in the application. After considering the submissions and perusal of evidence on record, the opposite party No.2 -Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 16, Raibareli, vide order dated 17.3.2010, granted injunction, directing the petitioner not to change the nature of the land in suit or to alienate the same and to preserve the property till decision of the suit.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order dated 17.3.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Raibareli, who, vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2010 upheld the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.;