Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PRAKASH PADIA
Sonu Sirohi – Appellant
Versus
Pushpendra Singh Sirohi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit Nos. 1199 of 2009 and 1187 of 2011, as such, both the appeals are being decided by the present common judgment.
2. The facts giving-rise to the present dispute are that an Original Suit No. 1199 of 2009 was instituted by Pushpendra Singh Sirohi and Smt. Poonam Agarwal against Smt. Sonu Sirohi for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to vacate the flat and restore the possession to the plaintiff. A further prayer was made for mesne-profit @ Rs.80,000/- per month from the date of Institution of the suit till actual physical possession is delivered to the plaintiff. For the sake of brevity, the present suit is being referred hereinafter as Suit No. 1 and plaintiff of aforesaid suit are being referred hereinafter as plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 of Suit No. 1. The defendant, namely, Smt. Sonu Sirohi is being referred hereinafter as defendant of Suit No.1.
3. The facts as stated in the plaint are that the defendant of suit no. 1 was married with plaintiff no.1 of suit no. 1. A tripartite agreement date
The transfer of property by one spouse, despite ongoing disputes, upheld when proper process and ownership evidence are established; injunction claims dismissed under Specific Relief Act provisions.
Point of law: Irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if, at the end of the trial, it were to succeed in the suit, but in the absence of an interim injunction, it stood disposse....
Irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if, at the end of the trial, it were to succeed in the suit, but in the absence of an interim injunction, it stood dispossessed, or third....
The court emphasized the importance of clear, unambiguous, and unconditional admissions for the exercise of discretion under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC and highlighted the principle that possession ....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the property to obtain relief, and mere claims of ownership by a defendant do not suffice to cloud the title of the plai....
In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.
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
