Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Suit for permanent injunction - Suit land not identifiable - It cannot be said, without any cogent evidence that dispute is with regard to 1/4th portion on the western side of Gata No.233 - Relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted...........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 -- Second appeal - Suit for joint possession and permanent injunction - Plaintiffs have not been able to prove that suit properties were ancestral property - No documentary evidence has been pointed out to show that suit properties were coming through four male lineal descendants - Plaintiff has not been able to show how khasra..........
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Permanent injunction - In a suit for permanent injunction, plaintiff has to make out and establish his possession...........
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Permanent injunction - Plaintiff had been unable to prove his exclusive possession over suit property - Another co-sharer had earlier filed a similar suit against defendant which was withdrawn which fact was not disclosed by plaintiff - Apart from oral testimonies, plaintiff could not establish from any cogent documentary evidence..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11 -- Rejection of plaint - Jurisdiction of civil Court - Suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration of ownership, permanent injunction and mesne profits - Said reliefs cannot be within the domain of a Rent Tribunal - Issues involved could be decided only by a Civil Court - Application rightly rejected...........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 10 -- Stay of subsequent suit - Earlier suit filed by plaintiff is for declaration and permanent injunction and subsequent suit filed by defendant is for possession - Relief sought in both the suits is different, thus, it would not operate as res judicata - Application rightly rejected...........
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Permanent injunction - DW1 admitted that plaintiffs were in possession of suit property and that defendants were not in possession of same - Courts below were duly justified in granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of plaintiffs over suit property - Suit rightly decreed...........
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 -- Suit for possession by pre-emption and permanent injunction - Disputed common way was purchased by plaintiff vide sale deed - Defendants had been given right to use common way as a licensee - However, defendant would not use the disputed common way, as plaintiff had already locked it - Suit dismissed...........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Status quo order - Once suit for permanent injunction was decreed, defendants had been restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs, operation of judgment decree rightly not stayed - However, once first appeal was under consideration of Court, proper way to deal with the matter was to pass an order directing..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 -- Second appeal - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiffs are title holder of suit land - Vendors of defendant admitted possession of vendor of plaintiffs over suit land in complaint case - Defendants thus, cannot claimed that they are in possession of suit land - Concurrent findings of Courts below that plaintiffs being title..........
