Back
ARUN BHANSALI
Prem Singh – Appellant
Versus
Gautam – Respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants aggrieved against the orders dated 20.10.2022 (Annex.7) and 02.11.2022 (Annex.9) whereby the trial court has passed mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall in question.
2. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in relation to construction raised by the petitioners. It was, inter-alia, prayed that the petitioners/defendants be directed to remove the wall marked as ’E’ to ’F’ and the way being used by the plaintiff, be reopened. It was, inter-alia, indicated in the suit that the defendants have raised construction over the way in question, which pertain to the plaintiff’s property.
3. The petitioners/defendants filed response, inter-alia, seeking to contend that the plaintiff has encroached the land and, therefore, he was not entitled to seek any relief.
4. The trial court by its order dated 20.10.2022 (Annex.7) with reference to the material available on record and the pictures, which were produced before it, came to the following conclusion and directed as under:
5. The appellate court also observed that in case the plea raised by the
The plaintiff was entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as the construction obstructed the plaintiff's way, and the plea raised by the defendants regarding granting of final relief could not....
The court affirmed the necessity of a prima facie case for injunctions in property disputes, emphasizing the balance of convenience and the importance of proper boundary determination.
Failure to establish clear evidence of encroachment precludes granting mandatory injunction.
The judgment focused on the lack of prima facie evidence of encroachment and the absence of obligation owed to the plaintiff by the defendant in a property dispute.
Concurrent findings of fact on possession and lack of necessity for mandatory injunction rendered the substantial questions of law irrelevant.
Equitable relief of mandatory injunction is discretionary and cannot disturb long-standing possession; a purchaser cannot claim such relief for structures existing prior to their ownership.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a mandatory injunction, emphasizing the necessity of a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoring the applicant.
A person can seek the relief of removal of encroachments, by way of a mandatory injunction, in case where the encroachments take place on public roads or public road margins.
The plaintiff was entitled to protection unless the construction of the compound wall violated local act regulations.
Ownership rights and the enforceability of injunctions concerning land use were affirmed, even against prior arrangements.
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
