Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
NAVYA KIRAN – Appellant
Versus
K.P.RAJENDRAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The 2nd defendant in a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the appellant. The Trial Court decreed the suit which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
2. The plaintiffs are the husband and wife. They are the aged parents of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaint schedule property and the residential building therein belonged to the plaintiffs as per Ext.A1. Originally, the suit was filed for prohibitory injunction. Thereafter, the suit was amended, including the prayer for mandatory injunction compelling the 2nd defendant to vacate the house in the plaint schedule property on the ground that the 2nd defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property, breaking open the lock of the house.
3. The Trial Court decreed the suit directing the 2nd defendant to vacate the house in the plaint schedule property by taking all her belongings within one month from the date of the judgment. Further, the defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the house in the plaint schedule property without prior permission of the plaintiffs and committing waste therein.
4. I heard
A suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable against an aggrieved person under the DV Act, as their occupation is permissive and does not confer legal possession.
The need for the licensor to be vigilant and take prompt action to evict the licensee from the premises after the termination of the license.
The Court ruled that while the daughter-in-law has a right to residence under the PWDV Act, the toxic living condition justifies her eviction to protect the wellbeing of elderly plaintiffs.
A mere occupant without title or lease cannot seek injunction against the true property owner.
The court upheld the right to reside in a shared household under the PWDV Act, validating interim injunctions for eviction when necessary to prevent harm, while ensuring alternative accommodation is ....
(1) Right of residence under PWDV Act is not absolute or permanent; it is a right of protection, not possession – Equally, right of senior citizens to live peacefully with dignity in their own proper....
The right to residence under the DV Act is not indefeasible, and the pendency of proceedings under the DV Act is not an embargo for initiating or continuing civil proceedings.
In landlord-tenant disputes, a suit for injunction can be maintainable following adequate notice of tenancy termination, regardless of title disputes.
Mandatory injunction – Dispossession from premises in a high-handed manner cannot be countenanced.
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
