Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Bijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
Chander Bhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background leading to civil suit for mandatory injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. arguments concerning property ownership, family settlement, and maintainability. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 3. judicial assessment of evidence regarding ancestral versus self-acquired property. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 4. determination of permissive occupation and absence of independent proprietary rights. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 5. license revocation and determination of mesne profits based on user admissions. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 6. final confirmation of mandatory injunction and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 61 , 62) |
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.2025 whereby the Suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent for Mandatory Injunction for directing the Appellant/Defendant and his f
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
