Showing : 1-10 of 43 Results

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Permanent and mandatory injunction - Claim of plaintiff based on plea of easement of necessity as also prescription - However, plea of easement rejected by Court below but suit decreed on the ground that suit land was classified as `share-aam-rashta' in revenue record - Findings of Court below is..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Permanent and mandatory injunction - Encroachment - No evidence on record brought by plaintiff to prove that there was encroachment at the instance of defendants except self serving statement of plaintiff - Demarcation report is of the year 2005 and no explanation has come forth in filing suit in..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 12, 20, 26, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, 37, 38, 39-- Application u/s 12(1) of Act of 2005 in pending proceedings under Specific Relief Act - Petition by wife u/ss 34, 37, 38, 39 SRA seeking restraint order against husband from removing son from the custody of wife - Application u/s 12(1) can be entertained in pending proceedings under Specific..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction - Restraining defendant from interfering in possession of plaintiff and to remove the cement platform - Plaintiff proved his possession in the suit property by producing property tax receipts as well as receipt for payment of electricity charges -..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2018
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 34, 38, 39-- Suit for declaration that gift deed in question is null and void and for permanent and mandatory injunction - U, registered gift deed - Defendant relied upon a Will executed by plaintiff after deed of gift - Transaction of gift having concluded before execution of Will, is inconsistent to Will..........
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Permanent and mandatory injunction - Encroachment made by defendant by raising construction - Plaintiff successfully proved that defendant encroached upon suit land and thereafter raised construction over same, during pendency of trial - Demarcation report submitted by Local Commissioner proves on..........
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Co-shares - Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction - Restraining defendant/co-sharer from raising construction on suit land and also from blocking path - Joint land - Suit land is recorded as Abadi deh and jointly owned and possessed inter se parties - Evidence on record proved that defendant..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39, 38-- Revocation of licence - Suit for mandatory injunction and in the alternative for possession and for permanent injunction restraining appellant from applying for an electric connection to the Electricity Department in his name - Parties to the suit are closely related and record reveals that in..........
PUNJAB AND HARAYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Suit mandatory and permanent injunction - Directing defendant to close main gate, which had been opened illegally, causing obstruction in usage and occupation of plaintiff - Defendant purchased his house and got it repaired after getting site plan sanctioned from M.C. - As per sanctioned site plan..........
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38, 39-- Permanent prohibitory injunction - Restraining defendant from interfering in exclusive possession of plaintiff over suit land or from raising construction - Plaintiff himself admitted that defendant had laid foundation of shop in question prior to institution of suit with his consent - Defendant..........

Showing : 1-10 of 43 Results