Civil Court Injunction Used to Throw Woman, Children Out of Ancestral Home: Allahabad HC Orders Probe, Rs 1 Lakh Compensation

Holding that a woman and her three minor children were illegally evicted from their ancestral home under the garb of a civil court injunction, the Allahabad High Court on January 5, 2026, ordered immediate restoration of possession, imposed compensation of Rs 1 lakh, and called for disciplinary action against a civil judge and scrutiny of a district court employee who benefited from the eviction.

The bench of Justices Arun Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta strongly condemned the manner in which the woman and her three minor children were forcibly evicted from their ancestral home in Siddharth Nagar district, calling it a “gross abuse of judicial and administrative power” and directing that possession of the property be restored to her within 48 hours.

The case arose from a dispute over a joint family house standing on plot no. 211, originally owned by the petitioner’s father-in-law, Gelhari. After his death, the property devolved jointly upon his widow and four sons. There was no physical partition of either the land or the residential structure, which housed multiple family members, including the petitioner, who ran a beauty parlour from one of the ground-floor shops to support her family.

In February 2024, two co-sharers (the woman's husband and his brother) executed a sale deed in favour of a district court employee (respondent no. 8), purporting to sell a defined portion of the undivided house. Despite the absence of partition or exclusive possession, the district court employee approached a trial court in January 2025, seeking a permanent injunction on the claim that he was in possession and was facing threat of dispossession.

On the very day the suit was filed, the trial court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining interference with the district court employee’s alleged possession. Within days, the same court entertained an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and directed police authorities to “ensure compliance” with the injunction, without issuing notice to the defendants or conducting any inquiry into actual possession.

The high court noted that the injunction granted was purely prohibitory in nature and did not authorise delivery of possession. Yet, relying on this order, revenue and police authorities constituted a joint team that arrived at the petitioner’s home in July 2025, detained her along with her three children, threw out the belongings from her beauty parlour, and handed over the premises to the purchaser.

The bench observed that the petitioner had no prior knowledge of either the civil suit or the injunction order and learnt of it only when she was being forcibly evicted. It also recorded that police reports themselves indicated that the purchaser had never obtained possession on the strength of the sale deed.

Scrutinising the trial court record, the high court found repeated procedural violations. Mandatory safeguards under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC were ignored, notices were not served, and the injunction was mechanically extended over several months without examining whether the defendants had even been informed of the proceedings.

Court remarked that the speed and manner in which the application for restoration of possession was allowed raised serious doubts about the propriety and bona fides of the exercise.

“The tearing hurry in which the matter has proceeded raises serious doubt about the bona fides of orders passed by the trial court and the action taken by the Administrative Authorities. The circumstances clearly warrant an enquiry on the administrative side,” the bench observed.

Concluding that both the trial court and the administrative authorities had acted wholly without jurisdiction, the high court directed that possession of the disputed property be handed back to the petitioner and other co-sharers within 48 hours. It further ordered that the judgment be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of disciplinary proceedings against the civil judge who passed the order directing police intervention.

Court also directed that the conduct of the employee of the district judgeship (respondent no. 8), be examined by the competent authority. As compensation for illegal dispossession and the mental trauma suffered by the petitioner and her children, court awarded costs of Rs 1 lakh, payable by the purchaser within one week, failing which recovery proceedings were directed to be initiated.

Case Title: Smt. Soni vs. State of U.P. and 7 others

Judgment Date: January 5, 2026

Bench: Justices Arun Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta