Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
3509 - RAVI NATH TILHARI,CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Devathu Musala Rao @ Papa – Appellant
Versus
Ragu Anitha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Challa Gunaranjan, J.)
Petitioners/Plaintiffs, being unsuccessful, preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC aggrieved by the order, dated 19.04.2023, passed in I.A. No.419 of 2022 in O.S. No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, whereby the trial Court dismissed the petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, followers and associates from entering or interfering with the petitioners/plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the Suit and I.A. before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Initially, the 1st plaintiff Devathu Musala Rao, claiming to be the adopted son of Devathu Sriranganadham, filed the present Suit in O.S.No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, followers, associates and relatives from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury for granting a temporary injunction, highlighting the trial court's failure to ad....
In property disputes, possession follows title; plaintiffs established a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction despite defendants' claims.
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....
A decree would be binding on the parties to the suit and not on third party.
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.
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.
A plaintiff with clear title and possession can seek an injunction against interference, even in the face of disputed title, provided they substantiate their claims with appropriate evidence.
Possession is critical for granting permanent injunctions even in the presence of title disputes, as affirmed by the Courts' findings regarding the plaintiff's established possession.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
