Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
, J
Raj Paul and Another v. Sudarsan Sharma
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction to the property dispute and essential facts for context. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments from both sides regarding the agreements and rights to the path. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations about the robustness of the prima facie case. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. legal principles regarding mandatory injunctions. (Para 14) |
| 5. final considerations and modifications of the orders. (Para 16 , 17) |
1. This is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 06.10.2016 delivered in Civil Misc. Appeal No.05 of 2016 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, affirming the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar in Civil Misc Case No.36 of 2016 [arising from T.S. 15/2015]. By the said order dated 27.09.2016, the Civil Judge issued an interim mandatory injunction in favour of the respondent directing to remove the welding and the gate erected on the path under reference.
2. A brief resume of fact, essential for appreciating the challenge may very shortly be introduced in the beginning. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction. For purpose of reference, the reliefs as urged i
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
