Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
Devendra Ramchandra Palasmkar – Appellant
Versus
Gajanan Raghunath Patkar – Respondent
Judgement :
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]
1. This First Appeal is filed by the Original Defendant No.1 challenging the Judgement dated 1st October 2012, passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Dindoshi, decreeing Suit No.1341 of 2010.
2. In the present Judgement, the parties are described in the same manner as they were described in the Suit.
3. Suit No.1341 of 2010 was filed seeking the following relief:
“a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the defendant No.1 his servants, agents, contractor/s or any person or persons claiming through under or by him permanently by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from entering into, remaining upon, dispossessing the Plaintiffs and/or disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property and/or constructing unauthorised sheds/structures/chawl's and/or from carrying out any unauthorised construction activities of whatsoever nature of otherwise from encroaching upon the suit property i.e. the land admeasuring m24 Gunthas equivalent to 2458.5sq. meters or thereabouts bearing survey No.178, Hissa No.1, Corresponding C.R.S.NO.171, 171/1 to 6 of Village Malad (East) Taluka Borivli, District Mumbai suburban togeth
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
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.
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
A plaintiff must prove ownership and possession to succeed in claims for permanent and mandatory injunctions, which was not established in this case.
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....
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
