G. RADHA RANI
Vutla Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
Kamini Krishna Murthy – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. Radha Rani, J.
This Second Appeal is filed by the appellant – respondent – defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2002 passed in A.S.No.48 of 1997 by the III Additional District Judge, Warangal District reversing the judgment and decree dated 09.06.1997 passed in O.S.No.206 of 1990 by the Principal District Munsif, Warangal.
2. The respondent is the plaintiff.
3. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.
4. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the absolute owner and possessor of plot Nos.16 and 17 in Survey No.147 admeasuring 520 square yards situated at erstwhile Somidi Village, presently being called as Venkatadri Nagar, Kazipet. He purchased the suit land in the year 1969 through a sada sale deed dated 28.04.1969 from the joint owners Mohd. Tajuddin Sahib and Sri V. Suryanarayana Rao for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- paid by the plaintiff in two installments of Rs.3,000/- on 30.03.1969 and balance amount of Rs.2,000 on 20.04.1969. Since the date of purchase, he was in exclusive possession of the suit land without any interference from any quarter. He was managing the suit land and was taking steps for
Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others
Avtar Singh & Ors. v. Bimla Devi & Ors.
B.C. Shivashankara v. B.R. Nagaraj
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai
Hamida v. Mohd. Khalil, (2001) 5 SCC 30 Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali
Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Roofrite (P) Ltd
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar
Kshitish Chandra Purkait v. Santosh Kumar Purkait
Mehboob-Ur-Rehman v. Ahsanul Ghani;
Nune Prasad v. Nune Ramakrishna
Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami
Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179
Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The plaintiff must establish clear title to succeed in a suit for injunction; mere possession is insufficient without title.
(1) Only when title is clear, Court can decide question of de jure possession.(2) Question of title can be decided only by filing a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and not a suit for inju....
Possession follows title; entries in revenue records do not confer ownership. A suit for injunction is maintainable without seeking declaration of title when possession is established.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a dispute over title, and the plaintiffs must prove possession within the claimed boundaries.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.