Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
ALKA SARIN
Attar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Council Narnaul – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Judgment
Mrs. Alka Sarin, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2017 passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction averring that he was in settled possession over the suit land for the last more than 60 years, since the time of his ancestors, and has raised construction over it. Since the defendant respondents were charging development cess illegally, the plaintiff-appellant had filed a civil suit in public interest against the defendant-respondents in which a decree of permanent injunction was passed restraining the defendant-respondents from charging the development cess. As per the plaintiff-appellant, because of this the defendant-respondents had become inimical towards him and had sent a notice calling upon the plaintiff-appellant to demolish the construction over the suit property and threat
The necessity of filing a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief when the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession.
The burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove actual and physical possession of the suit property for the grant of permanent injunction.
A person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against dispossession without due process, even from the rightful owner.
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 ....
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
A plaintiff must provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish possession for a permanent injunction; mere oral testimony is inadequate.
A person in settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession by the true owner without legal recourse, even if the title is disputed.
Relief which cannot be granted in main suit, can also not be granted by way of interim relief.
Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted.
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy
-
Read summaryAnnaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.