Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL
Ritesh Khatri S/o Shyam Sundar Khatri – Appellant
Versus
Shyam Sundar Khatri S/o Balmukund Khatri – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
1. Instant Civil Second Appeal u/s. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed in Civil First Appeal No.64/2024, by the Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, dismissing the appellant-defendant’s First Appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.8/2019 by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Sawai Madhopur, whereby and whereunder, while decreeing the Civil Suit for mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff, appellant-defendant has been directed to vacate and handover actual possession of suit property to respondent-plaintiff. The prayer of the plaintiff to award mesne profit against defendant has been disallowed. The counter-claim submitted by the appellant-defendant seeking to restrain respondent-plaintiff by way of permanent injunction has also been disallowed.
2. This is an unfortunate litigation, in respect of immovable property between father and son, continuing since half decade, which shows a notable decadence of ethics and moral values in the society. Appellant-defendant is son and respondent-plaintiff is his father.
3. The relevant fact
The court emphasized that a familial relationship does not confer legal rights over property; residing with permission does not equate to ownership or a licensee status.
Mandatory injunction – If father allows his son or daughter to continue in possession of his house or property or its portion, same does not, by itself, create any legal right in favour of the child ....
The right to reside in a household is not absolute for a daughter-in-law against the owner's will, emphasizing the need to respect ownership rights and permissions.
Ownership of property established through financial contribution and valid settlement deeds supersedes claims of joint family ownership without corroborative evidence.
Domestic violence - While the DV Act is a social welfare legislation granting protection to women who are victims of domestic violence, every dispute amongst family members cannot be converted into a....
Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Where there is construction raised on disputed property alleged to be owned by plaintiffs, appropriate and efficacious remedy available to them was to institute suit f....
Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.
The court upheld the plaintiff's right to seek a mandatory injunction against the defendant, emphasizing the necessity of consistent evidence and pleadings in property disputes.
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 ....
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
