Back
SANJEEV KUMAR
Mohammad Maqbool Sofi – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Gaffar Parray – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The petitioner invokes supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 Constitution of India to quash an order dated 8th December, 2023, passed by Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Baramulla [“the Appellate Court”] in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal titled “Ab. Gafar Parray Vs. Mohammed Maqbool Sofi.”
2. Briefly put the facts pleaded by the petitioner are that the petitioner [hereinafter referred to be as “plaintiff” for convenience] filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent [hereinafter referred to be as “defendant” for convenience] seeking to restrain the defendant from causing any interference or dispossessing the plaintiff from the land measuring 1 Kanal situate at Gulmarg Road Chichilora Baramulla [“the suit land”]. In the plaint filed before the Court of learned Munsiff, Tangmarg, [“the Trial Court”], it is averred that plaintiff took on rent the suit land from the defendant in the year 2017 for a period of five years through a registered lease deed executed in the year 2017. The plaintiff started his business of Automobile Motor Garage under the name and style of M/s Auto Best Motor Garages/Maks Garage. It is alleged that though
Injunction cannot be claimed to perpetuate unauthorised possession by invoking equitable jurisdiction of Civil Court.
The concept of 'Due Process' and its application in property disputes, as well as the limitations of the court's powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The court clarified that to obtain a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of convenience, and a prima facie case even without physical possession.
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.
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.
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove possession in cases seeking injunctive relief.
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
