Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Committee Rupnagar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
Both afore-titled appeals have been instituted by the defendants against a judgment of reversal. The suit for permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiffs (Municipal Committee Rupnagar and Nand Kishore Bhandari) was dismissed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar, vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.1983. However, separate appeals preferred by both plaintiffs against the said decision were allowed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar, vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.1988, thereby decreeing the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.
3. The plaintiffs (Municipal Committee Rupnagar and one Nand Kishore Bhandari) instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (Raj Rani and 17 others) from blocking or interfering into the free use of the passage shown as IFEKJ and directing them to remove or demolish the structures raised on the passage shown as ROHIJKIM, depicted as red in the site plan.
4. The case set up was that there was a Nazul land, depicted as ABCDEFG in the site plan, where the old grain market was situated. The shop of plain
In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their right to the property, which they failed to do.
The court confirmed that claims of property encroachment require substantial proof; failure to demonstrate ownership or obstruction by defendants led to dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal.
A party can seek a permanent injunction without needing to declare title if there is no cloud over title and possession can be proved, even when facing encroachment claims.
The plaintiff must prove the existence of a path through the defendant's land to claim permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit must be framed as per the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 CPC.
A suit seeking injunctive relief must include a declaration of rights to be valid; otherwise, the relief sought is unsustainable if no such declaration is made.
Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises, which was not applicable in this case.
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
