K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Narra Lokanadha Rao S/o Madhava Rao – Appellant
Versus
Rambukta Satyanarayana S/o Pothanna – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 21.04.2022 passed in C.M.A. No. 8 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 1193 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant and his men from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 970 of 2017 in the said suit seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.
3. The brief facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit stating that plaint schedule property is his absolute property, devolved from his ancestors. For the last 20 years, the plaintiff and his family are residing in the said property constructing two ACC sheets roofed houses on a basement. D. Nos. 11-3-62/2 and 11-3-62/3 and Assessment Nos. 1089008597 and 1089002285 were given by the Municipality. Respondent/plaintiff has been paying taxes to the municipality. Electrical service connection SC No.
M.M.B. Catholicos v. M.P. Athanasius
Syed Fahim Arif and Another v. Rahmatunnisa Begum and Another
A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish lawful possession, a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential hardship to obtain a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish possession and incidental title to the property. Clear title supported by documents is necessary to claim perm....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of documentary evidence in establishing possession and entitlement to property, and the burden of proof on the party contesting such claims.
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, and the plaintiff fails to prove lawful possession.
The court emphasized that a party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm, with a failure to do so justifying dismissa....
The court ruled that temporary injunction requires a showing of prima facie title, balance of convenience, and credible evidence of possession, with registered sale deeds being prioritized over notar....
The court reaffirmed that without establishing lawful possession and tenancy, an injunction cannot be granted.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.