Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Vishnu Kumar Lohiya – Appellant
Versus
Shivshankar – Respondent
ORDER :
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal, which is reported to be time barred by 91 days, is accompanied with an application under Section 5 of LIMITATION ACT .
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in preferring the second appeal is condoned.
3. This civil second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant (for brevity, "the defendant") against the judgement and decree dated 03.03.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.4/2019 (11/2019) CIS No.11/2019 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgement dated 24.12.2018 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bharatpur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") decreeing the Suit No.73/2016 for permanent injunction, has been upheld.
4. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant stating therein that they were under ownership and possession of the subject property as described in Para 1 of the plaint situated in Mohalla Mojiram, Behind Old Post Office, Bharatpur which the
The judgment clarified the application of easementary rights in the context of joint ownership and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish his claims.
Establishing easementary rights necessitates granting a permanent injunction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
The plaintiff, having established easementary right, was entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction to prevent a multiplicity of judicial 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
