Back
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Veena Bhojwani – Appellant
Versus
Anju Jani – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. appellants impugn order dated 23.02.2021 whereby the application filed by respondent (plaintiff) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 has been allowed and the appellants have been directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent in the subject property and also not to create any third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that admittedly respondent was not in possession of the subject property as is evident from an application filed by the respondent before the Trial Court dated 12.07.2019 wherein it is specifically mentioned that respondent was evicted from the suit property pursuant to an order passed by the District Magistrate under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens act and possession was handed over on 04.07.2019.
4. Learned counsel for respondent concedes that respondent is not in possession of the subject property.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes that appellants shall maintain status quo with regard to the ground floor of the subject property and shall not create any
The court clarified the limited extent of the restraint on the appellants and emphasized that the factual observations and findings in the impugned order shall not have a bearing on the final disposa....
The court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
The court affirmed that joint possession rights require cooperation among parties, and legal ownership secured through a relinquishment deed prevails against claims of occupancy by estranged family m....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the appellant to show evidence of dispossession and the significance of previous judicial findings on possession.
Possession established by the Respondent cannot be overcome by mere claims of ownership from the Appellant without substantial evidence of prior dispossession.
The possession of the respondents in the suit property is recorded in the revenue record and the court found no manifest error in the findings of the trial and appellate courts.
Court emphasizes the requirement of notifying intentions to create third-party rights in property pending adjudication of application, upholding status quo.
The court upheld the interim order restraining unauthorized construction on the property during the pendency of the partition suit, emphasizing the prohibition of actions that could cause irreparable....
In property disputes involving conflicting claims, the court must evaluate the evidence presented to determine the balance of convenience and the necessity for a trial to resolve ownership issues.
Status quo orders in property disputes must be based on clear findings of possession; courts must protect property rights during litigation.
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
