SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ker) 802

P.B.SURESH KUMAR
KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY – Appellant
Versus
AMINA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :T.K. Vipindas, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. The first defendant in a suit for injunction, both prohibitory as well as mandatory, is the appellant. The plaint A schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and her children namely Faizal, Haris, Nazeer and Saleem. The plaint B schedule property is a portion of the plaint A schedule property. The first defendant is the Municipality within which the plaint schedule properties are situated. The second defendant is a contractor of the first defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that as directed by the first defendant, the second defendant has trespassed into a portion of the plaint A schedule property and formed a road through the same. The portion of the plaint A schedule property through which the road was formed is shown in the plaint as the plaint B schedule property. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the plaint B schedule property to its original position. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties was also sought by the plaintiff. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement.









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top