MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants (for brevity 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur (for brevity 'the appellate court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.103/2017 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity 'the plaintiff'), the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (East) Jaipur Metropolitan (for brevity-'the learned trial court') dismissing the civil suit No.92/2003 (199/2000) for permanent injunction, have been revered.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants stating therein that he was in occupation of the residential house situated in Foos Ka Bangla, Badodiya Basti, Jaipur since the time of his ancestors i.e. for last about 100 years. It was averred that in the survey conducted by the defendants in the year 1971, he was assigned survey No.006287 of the subject property being in its possession. Alleging that the defendants wanted to forcibly dispossess him, the decree as aforesaid was prayed for.
3. Defendan
Munshi Ram and Ors. Vs. Delhi Administration (1968) 2 SCR 455
Puran Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 518
Ram Rattan and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1977) 1 SCC 188
A person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against dispossession without due process, even from the rightful owner.
A person in settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession by the true owner without legal recourse, even if the title is disputed.
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
The necessity of filing a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief when the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession.
Continuous possession must be proven to obtain an injunction; mere revenue entries are not conclusive if rebutted by evidence.
A person in settled possession is entitled to protect their possession against even the true owner, regardless of title.
Injunction cannot be claimed to perpetuate unauthorised possession by invoking equitable jurisdiction of Civil Court.
In a suit for injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, failing which the appeal may be dismissed.
Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.