Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
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
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Tejendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Anis Ahamd – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.55 of 2021 filed by respondent, whereby his temporary injunction application was allowed.
2. Facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are as follows:
In the year 1995, respondent was inducted as tenant in respect of a shop, by its owner Shri Chandi Prasad. After death of Chandi Prasad, his son Vinod Prakash became owner of the shop and a fresh lease deed was executed between him and the respondent. Now, the shop is transferred by Vinod Prakash in favour of Tejendra Singh and Sukhjeet Singh.
Apprehending his forcible dispossession from the said shop, respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. Learned trial Court rejected his temporary injunction application, however, the Appeal filed
The central legal point established in the judgment is that even an unauthorized occupant can be ejected only in the manner provided by law, emphasizing the concept of 'due course of law' and legal p....
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.
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 ....
A person in settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession by the true owner without legal recourse, even if the title is disputed.
A person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against dispossession without due process, even from the rightful owner.
A caretaker cannot acquire rights to property solely through long possession; valid rental or license agreements are necessary for legal protection.
Mandatory injunction – Dispossession from premises in a high-handed manner cannot be countenanced.
A pendente lite transferee cannot resist the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property, as any transfer made during the pendency of a suit is void under Section 52 of the Transfer of....
A mere occupant without title or lease cannot seek injunction against the true property owner.
A family member of a tenant cannot claim legal rights to property or file for an injunction without asserting ownership or interest, demonstrating a lack of enforceable obligation under the law.
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