Back
G. RADHA RANI
Shaik Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
Omprakash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dr. G. Radha Rani, J.
1. This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - appellants - plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 passed in A.S. No.156 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007 passed in O.S. No.14 of 2003 by the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court.
3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of land in Survey No. 225 in Sailampoor shivar of Suleman Nagar Village of Kotagir Mandal, Nizamabad District.
4. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the owners and possessors of dry agricultural land to an extent of Ac.00-20 guntas each abutting each other in one single block in Survey No. 225. They purchased the suit lands under respective registered sale deeds, both dated 11.11.2002 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,000/- each from its original owner A.Bhavani Shankar Rao. The suit lands were mutated in the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. The defendant No. 1's family used to run a Khandsari Sugar
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.
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove possession of the property as of the date of filing; failure to do so results in dismissal.
The court affirmed that in seeking an injunction over immovable property, examination of title is necessary if challenged by the opposing party.
Suit filed for perpetual injunction by plaintiff, when there is cloud over title is not maintainable.
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.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable without a concurrent suit for declaration of title when ownership is disputed, emphasizing the necessity of primary evidence in possession claims.
The plaintiff must establish clear title to succeed in a suit for injunction; mere possession is insufficient without title.
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
