Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Monir Ali @ Morinuddin Ahmed S/o. Late Mumtaz Ali – Appellant
Versus
Hashim Ali S/o. Late Akbar Ali – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 24.09.2024 passed in Misc (J) Case No.10/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.7/2024 whereby the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup at Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) passed an order of injunction thereby restrained the appellants herein who were the opposite parties in the injunction proceedings from alienating or encumbering the suit land in any manner till the disposal of the Title Suit. In addition to that the learned Trial Court further directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to their respective possession over the suit land.
3. It is a settled principle of law that an appeal preferred challenging an order passed in exercise of equitable jurisdiction is limited. It is only when the said order on the face of it is erroneous, arbitrary, irrational and violates the well settled principles of the law of injunction, the Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction. Keeping
An injunction cannot be granted without a substantive challenge to the title or rights of the parties, and the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable harm must be considered.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
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....
Injunctions require specificity and must satisfy the criteria of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.
Presumption under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the requirement for trial to decide allegations of forgery or fraud.
A permanent injunction suit is not maintainable when complicated questions of title arise, necessitating separate declaratory proceedings.
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
