March 2020

February 2020

IMP:: Injunction against co-sharer–No injunction can be granted against other co-sharers unless and until plaintiffs are proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit property to the ouster of other co-sharers

By | February 22nd, 2020|Injunction|

Comments Off on IMP:: Injunction against co-sharer–No injunction can be granted against other co-sharers unless and until plaintiffs are proved to be in exclusive possession of the suit property to the ouster of other co-sharers

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38–Permanent Injunction—Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants claiming that he had purchased the plot from defendants over which he had raised construction—Only thing is to be seen whether plaintiff is in legal possession and question of title is not to be adjudicated

By | February 21st, 2020|Injunction|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38–Permanent Injunction—Plaintiff sought injunction against defendants claiming that he had purchased the plot from defendants over which he had raised construction—Only thing is to be seen whether plaintiff is in legal possession and question of title is not to be adjudicated

January 2020

December 2019

Permanent Injunction—Concealment of material fact regarding pendency of suit by defendants—Suit liable to be dismissed on this ground alone Permanent Injunction—Part Possession—Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the entire suit land—Defendants found to be in possession of substantial part of suit land—Plaintiffs could not be granted injunction with regard to remaining land

By | December 31st, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Permanent Injunction—Concealment of material fact regarding pendency of suit by defendants—Suit liable to be dismissed on this ground alone Permanent Injunction—Part Possession—Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the entire suit land—Defendants found to be in possession of substantial part of suit land—Plaintiffs could not be granted injunction with regard to remaining land

Permanent Injunction—Part Possession—Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the entire suit land—Defendants found to be in possession of substantial part of suit land—Plaintiffs could not be granted injunction with regard to remaining land Appeal—Counter Claim—Decree dismissing the Civil suit and decreeing the counter claim—Two separate appeals should have been filed

By | December 27th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Permanent Injunction—Part Possession—Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the entire suit land—Defendants found to be in possession of substantial part of suit land—Plaintiffs could not be granted injunction with regard to remaining land Appeal—Counter Claim—Decree dismissing the Civil suit and decreeing the counter claim—Two separate appeals should have been filed

Temporary Injunction—Against dispossession—Contention that sale deed was got executed by fraud—Registered sale deed has presumption of truth- -Mere registration of FIR against respondent itself does not help the case of plaintiff— Prima-facie case for grant of injunction not made out

By | December 27th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Temporary Injunction—Against dispossession—Contention that sale deed was got executed by fraud—Registered sale deed has presumption of truth- -Mere registration of FIR against respondent itself does not help the case of plaintiff— Prima-facie case for grant of injunction not made out

Injunction—Joint Possession—Injunction cannot be granted against a person who is in joint cultivating possession, in any circumstances, whatever

By | December 23rd, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Injunction—Joint Possession—Injunction cannot be granted against a person who is in joint cultivating possession, in any circumstances, whatever

November 2019

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Against forcible dispossession-In case of simpliciter injunction, plaintiff is required to prove long and settled possession—In present case, it remained unproved-Suit for injunction held to be righty dismissed.   

By | November 24th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Against forcible dispossession-In case of simpliciter injunction, plaintiff is required to prove long and settled possession—In present case, it remained unproved-Suit for injunction held to be righty dismissed.   

Injunction—Suit for right of easement of necessity—Declaration of easement rights could not be decided without appreciating the evidence-Directions issued to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit

By | November 9th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Injunction—Suit for right of easement of necessity—Declaration of easement rights could not be decided without appreciating the evidence-Directions issued to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit

July 2019

June 2019

May 2019

March 2019

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Permanent Injunction-Public Street-­ Encroachment ~A person who seeks equity must do equity—If at all, there was some encroachment on behalf of the appellant, he should have removed the same and then sought the injunction—In the absence of the same, and the courts below had no other option but to dismiss the suit

By | March 26th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Permanent Injunction-Public Street-­ Encroachment ~A person who seeks equity must do equity—If at all, there was some encroachment on behalf of the appellant, he should have removed the same and then sought the injunction—In the absence of the same, and the courts below had no other option but to dismiss the suit

Injunction—Suit for Possession—Court Fee— Civil suit for mandatory injunction claiming possession of the suit property from the defendants in the absence of payment of court fees, much less branding them to be licenses would be maintainable in case they have been filed within reasonable time, otherwise relief for possession on payment of court fees is required to be sought

By | March 15th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Injunction—Suit for Possession—Court Fee— Civil suit for mandatory injunction claiming possession of the suit property from the defendants in the absence of payment of court fees, much less branding them to be licenses would be maintainable in case they have been filed within reasonable time, otherwise relief for possession on payment of court fees is required to be sought

Temporary Injunction- Application under O.39 R.I and R.2 not to be dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction in absence of any application by defendants for rejection/return of plaint under O.7 R.11 or R.7 R.10 CPC on this ground—Question of jurisdiction requires leading of evidence at an appropriate stage—Order dismissing the application set aside.              

By | March 14th, 2019|Injunction|

Comments Off on Temporary Injunction- Application under O.39 R.I and R.2 not to be dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction in absence of any application by defendants for rejection/return of plaint under O.7 R.11 or R.7 R.10 CPC on this ground—Question of jurisdiction requires leading of evidence at an appropriate stage—Order dismissing the application set aside.              

December 2018

October 2018

June 2018

April 2018