Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G. S. Ahluwalia
Ramdayal S/O Devi Singh (Dead) – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
The second appeal under section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07-10-2008, passed by First Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 25A/2008, as well as the judgment and decree dated 03-03-2007, passed by Ninth Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 357A/2007.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from both the courts below.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner and in possession of the property in dispute and defendants Nos. 1 and 2, on filmsy grounds, are out and out to disposes him from the disputed property. It was further stated that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are, accordingly, manipulating the revenue records, whereas in respect of the disputed property, defendant No. 2 itself had given N.O.C. on 09-03-2000. Even a notice was given to the plaintiff by defendants for diversion. It was pleaded that defendants have registered the case against plaintiff on flimsy grounds and, taking advantage of the illiteracy of plain
The appellate court cannot issue orders contrary to the appellant's interest when no cross-objection is presented, upholding that possession is protected by law even without ownership rights.
The court established that inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC can be exercised to restore possession when parties have been wrongfully dispossessed, irrespective of the formal dismissal of ....
When the plaintiff's title to the property is in dispute and there is a threat of dispossession, the plaintiff should sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.
Where possession of plaintiff-respondent is not satisfactorily proved, no gainful purpose would be served in remanding the mater for re-consideration only on account of procedural lapse committed by ....
A person in settled possession is protected against forcible dispossession by the true owner without legal recourse, even if the title is disputed.
A plaintiff must prove ownership and prior possession to seek an amendment for additional relief in a property dispute; lack thereof results in dismissal.
The legal principle established is that a person in lawful possession of a property, especially as an adopted son, cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.
A person in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protection against dispossession without due process, even from the rightful owner.
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
