Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA
Radhakrishna, S/o. Sri B.N. Balaram – Appellant
Versus
Jailakshmi, W/o. Late Nanjundappa – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's ownership and defendant's encroachment. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis on mandatory injunction. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 3. arguments on denial of mandatory injunction. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. equity in denying mandatory injunction. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusion upholding lower court's decision. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed in O.S.No.1898/1993 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the suit was partly decreed, declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property, while rejecting the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the compound wall and staircase alleged to have been put up by the defendant.
-
3. Heard Sri. M.D.Raghunath, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.
4. Suit is one for declaration of title, possession and for mandatory injunction to demolition of struct
Equitable relief of mandatory injunction is discretionary and cannot disturb long-standing possession; a purchaser cannot claim such relief for structures existing prior to their ownership.
A plaintiff can seek permanent and mandatory injunctions based on established possession of the property, regardless of whether a declaration of title has been formally sought.
The need for the licensor to be vigilant and take prompt action to evict the licensee from the premises after the termination of the license.
Concurrent findings of fact on possession and lack of necessity for mandatory injunction rendered the substantial questions of law irrelevant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunc....
The Court emphasized the importance of adequate identification of the property and the structure in granting a mandatory injunction. It also highlighted the significance of proving the illegality and....
Mandatory injunction maintainable for encroachment removal without possession prayer when ownership admitted and damages inadequate.
Occupancy rights enable a party to seek a mandatory injunction against unauthorized construction without needing to establish title, emphasizing compliance with municipal laws.
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
