Back
PRANAY VERMA
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Chanchal Jadon D/o Late Senpal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2024 passed in MCA No.3/2024 by the Second District Judge, Shujalpur, District Shajapur reversing the order dated 15.02.2024 passed in RCS No.10-A/2024 by the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shujalpur, District Shajapur and allowing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC preferred by the plaintiff/respondent.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 15.01.2024 the plaintiff instituted an action before the trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly dispossessing her from the suit shop, from causing any damage to it or from interfering with her possession over the same. She submitted that the defendant had constructed 27 shops in front of its school ground and had auctioned the same in which one shop measuring 5 x 3 square meter was allotted to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.3,96,000/- on rent at Rs.1,026/- per month. The shop of plaintiff is bearing No.7/1. The tenancy of the suit shop has been renewed from time to time lastly on 15.01.2022 for a period of 35 mon
Tenants cannot be forcibly dispossessed without legal grounds, and tenancy agreements must be upheld, as reaffirmed by the court.
Clear evidence of an existing injunction is necessary for contempt proceedings; mere assumptions or vague terms do not suffice.
The need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for granting injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellate court upheld that the plaintiff lacked a right of access to the northern side of her shop, as the land was classified as parti and not appurtenant to her property.
A suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership, especially when the plaintiff admits that part of the property is in the possession of the defendants.
Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.
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.
Permanent injunction – A person cannot have benefit of protection order from Court when he has failed to prima facie establish his right to remain in possession of property.
Suits for mandatory injunctions can succeed if ownership is established, countering the Trial Court's denial based on misinterpretation of property 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
