Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN CHANDER NEGI
Krishan Chand – Appellant
Versus
Roop Lal Deceased through LRs. Om Parkash – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2007 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Sarkaghat District Mandi in Civil Suit No. 243.
2. The plaintiff had filed a civil suit before the Ld. Trial Court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from digging the suit land, using it as a path, projecting the eaves of their proposed house, or discharging water from their proposed house onto the suit land. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish any construction and restore the suit land to its original position if they succeeded in raising any construction during the pendency of the suit. It was pleaded that the suit land was recorded in the names of Om Prakash, Vidya Devi, and Ranjeet, and the plaintiff wa
A person in lawful possession is entitled to seek injunctive relief against interference, affirming the necessity of protecting possession rights.
A plaintiff must establish clear evidence of actual interference or encroachment to succeed in a suit for a permanent injunction; mere allegations without corroboration are insufficient.
The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove actual and physical possession of the suit property for the grant of permanent injunction.
Judgments in appeal can only be overturned when proved unjust; proper possession and legal title must be substantiated through evidence.
A person in settled possession is entitled to protect their possession against even the true owner, regardless of title.
Lawful possession as a tenant requires proof of rent payment; mere entries in land records are insufficient.
Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted.
Possession of immovable property cannot be transferred by mere oral gift, and a decree for permanent injunction cannot be granted without clear evidence of legal possession, especially when the state....
Continuous possession must be proven to obtain an injunction; mere revenue entries are not conclusive if rebutted by evidence.
A person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against dispossession without due process, even from the rightful owner.
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
Listen Article