Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SMT.DAULATABAI SHAHABUDDIN SATTANI AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
SMT.KULSHAMBAI WD/O ALLIBHAI AJANI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
1. By this appeal, judgments and decrees dated 20.12.2003 passed by learned 3rd Ad Hoc Additional District Judge, Wardha in RCA No.109/1997 and 4.10.1997 passed by learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Wardha in RCS No.164/1997 are under challenge.
2. The parties hereinafter are referred as per their original nomenclature.
3. The respondent herein is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the northern wall of house and from alienating the suit house. The plaintiff is the owner of nazul plot No.215 and in nazul sheet No.14 of mouza Wardha admeasuring 417.01 square meters. The house of the defendants is on the western side of the plot along with one block on the southern side of the said plot wherein the son of the plaintiff is running shop. The original owner of the suit property was husband of the plaintiff who died on 6.2.1981. After death of her husband, she along with her sons inherited the suit property. It is specific contention of the plaintiff that her husband during his life time has never executed any Will in favour of his son Salim and, therefore,
A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when there is interference with lawful possession, even if ownership is disputed, provided the plaintiff establishes possession.
The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.
A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable when there is interference with lawful possession, and a declaration of title is not necessary unless there is a genuine dispute over the title.
A declaration of property ownership requires establishing possession; without it, claims regarding related deeds are insufficient.
The plaintiff must prove lawful possession to obtain a permanent injunction; mere possession without title is insufficient.
The plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
(1) Injunction is a consequential relief – In a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a furth....
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must establish prima facie title or possession; failure to do so results in dismissal of the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a property transaction during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the suit, and the Court may grant injunction....
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
