Back
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Harak Chand J. Golecha – Appellant
Versus
Babulal B. Tater – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgement and decree dated 24.06.2011 passed by the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in A.S.No.27 of 2010, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2009 passed by the learned XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai in O.S.No.6711 of 2007.)
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the court of Principal District Judge at Salem in A.S.No.54 of 2011 dated 06.09.2012 in reversing the judgment and decree of the court of Subordinate Judge at Attur in O.S.No.88 of 2004 dated 15.09.2006.
2. The appellant before me is the defendant in the suit.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the original suit.
4. The plaintiff cameforward with OS.No.204 of 2002 for the relief of declaration, prohibition injunction and mandatory injunction. He alleged that the defendant had encroached upon his property and had put up construction and encroachment. The plaintiff had purchased the property on 07.03.1998. The extent of the property purchased was 2270 sq. ft. The plaintiff's vendor had retained 1510 sq. ft. As per the sale deed, a passage was provid
The central legal point established in the judgment is the demarcation of boundaries and the justification for granting mandatory injunction in cases of potential nuisance caused by a neighbor's acti....
The plaintiff was entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as the construction obstructed the plaintiff's way, and the plea raised by the defendants regarding granting of final relief could not....
A plaintiff can seek permanent and mandatory injunctions based on established possession of the property, regardless of whether a declaration of title has been formally sought.
Concurrent findings of fact on possession and lack of necessity for mandatory injunction rendered the substantial questions of law irrelevant.
Mandatory injunction maintainable for encroachment removal without possession prayer when ownership admitted and damages inadequate.
Failure to establish clear evidence of encroachment precludes granting mandatory injunction.
The judgment focused on the lack of prima facie evidence of encroachment and the absence of obligation owed to the plaintiff by the defendant in a property dispute.
A mandatory injunction can include a decree of possession when the plaintiff proves ownership and encroachment, regardless of specific prayers for possession.
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
