SANDEEP V. MARNE
Sudesh Sharad Redij – Appellant
Versus
Sunil Shankar Redij – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
By this Appeal, Appellants have challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 2 May 2017 passed by the Ad-Hoc District Judge-I, Ratnagiri in Civil Appeal No. 155/2012. The first Appellate Court has dismissed the Appeal filed by Appellants and has confirmed the Decree dated 21 July 2012 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Suit No.55/2004. The Trial Court while decreeing the suit, has injuncted the Appellants/Defendants from obstructing Plaintiffs possession in respect of the suit property without following due process of law.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Municipal House No. 1981 at City Survey No. 2432 within the limits of Ratnagiri Municipal Council and bearing Survey No.479, Hissa No.8 admeasuring 1.5 Ares at Village-Zadgoan together with Shop situated on ground floor therein named 'Sadhana Stores is the subject matter of the suit. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 contended in his suit that Shop 'Sadhana Stores was being run initially by his father - Shankar Gajanan Redij and thereafter Plaintiff started operating the Shop. He further pleaded in the plaint that, Shankar Gajanan Redij, Sharad Gajanan Redij and Rame
A suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership, especially when the plaintiff admits that part of the property is in the possession of the defendants.
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
Suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable and the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit of the plaintiff, when the defendants apart from denying the title and poss....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that convincing evidence is required to establish settled possession through adverse possession, and mere inferential circumstances are not suffici....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the property to obtain relief, and mere claims of ownership by a defendant do not suffice to cloud the title of the plai....
In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.
Permanent injunction – A person cannot have benefit of protection order from Court when he has failed to prima facie establish his right to remain in possession of property.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
(1) Possession is good against all but true owner.(2) Plaintiff who has proved his right over property as well as possession over suit property, he is entitled for decree of injunction.(3) Even tresp....
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.