Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Hujti Ram – Appellant
Versus
Yogesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chamba, whereby the well reasoned order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chamba in Civil miscellaneous application No. 8 of 2024 titled Yogesh Kumar vs. Hujti has been set aside and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo qua nature of the suit property.
2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. 3. The present respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The respondent had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction. It is contended in the suit that insofar as the suit property is concerned, the parties to the lis i.e. present petitioner and respondent are joint owners in possession. Theproperty is stated to be un-partitioned inter se the co-sharers. The cause of action accrued in favour of the present respondent, when present petitioner started raising construction in December, 2023 on a portion of the suit land, which is joint.
4. In response thereto, the present petitioner averred that by virtue of a gift deed made by the original owner Smt. Amro Dev
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting conclusions of lower courts.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave derelictions of duty and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence or legal errors unless they result in a m....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not correcting errors of law or fact.
A co-owner in exclusive possession of a joint property may raise construction on their portion without infringing on the rights of other co-owners.
A co-owner can seek injunction against another co-owner to prevent wrongful dispossession, contrary to the trial court's ruling that denied such relief.
Principle of equity, which is cardinal while deciding the grant of equitable relief of injunction, has duly been considered.
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction must be confined to limits mentioned in injunction order itself.
One co-sharer out of the many has no right to build on which is joint land without the consent of others notwithstanding that, the erection of such building may cause no direct loss to other joint ow....
Court must be satisfied that party praying for relief has a prima-facie case and balance of convenience is in its favour- Besides above, while granting injunction, if any, Court is also required to c....
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
