Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 6 Rule 17—A suit for injunction based on alleged encroachment where both plaintiff and defendant claim title and possession through registered deeds, mere prayer for injunction without seeking declaratory relief of title is not maintainable—The plaintiff must establish clear title, exact boundaries, and prove encroachment to succeed—Failure to amend the plaint to include a declaration of title, especially after the defendant contests ownership, is fatal to the suit—Rectification deeds executed by the defendant and not challenged by the plaintiff further weaken the claim—Delay in objecting to large-scale construction by the defendant undermines the plaintiff’s assertion of exclusive possession—Reports by Court Commissioners or DILR are unreliable if they ...

Suit for injunction by buyer. Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 39—Registration Act, 1908, Section 85—Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 11—Suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.12.2010 and for perpetual injunction—Defence of, title deed of plaintiff was registered with delay of more than 2 years etc—The document bears the signatures of not only the vendor, the attesting witnesses and also the necessary endorsement by the Sub-Registrar—This makes it abundantly clear that the sale deed was executed on 02.12.1985 and presented before the Sub-Registrar on 5.12.1985—Later on, it was registered on 14.06.2011—Based upon the aforesaid two factual errors, the Trial Court and the High Court wrongly shifted the burden on the plaintiff to prove execution of the sale deed and also payment of the...

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 39 Rule 2(A) read with Section 151—Contempt proceedings against defendants for alleged disobedience of a court order in a Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction regarding a fire-damaged property—The court decreed the suit, restraining defendants from unauthorized construction—The applicants claim willful disobedience, specifically by defendant No. 126/North Delhi Municipal Corporation—However, the court notes the corporation's actions against violators, including sealing and demolition orders, indicating due process—Without evidence of "willful disobedience" or violation, the court dismisses the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC, 1908, emphasizing the absence of specific allegations and compliance with building bye-laws—The court undersco...

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1959 - Section 52(2)—Dismissing his second appeal—Challenge to acquisition matter pertains to the failure to serve notice under Section 52(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1959—The issue at hand concerns the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and its maintainability in such cases—There are differing opinions and distinguishing judgments on this matter—Therefore, it has been directed that the case be referred to a larger Bench by the Chief Justice of India for clarification. (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1959—Section 52(2)—Suit for injunction—Challenge to acquisition—Failure to serve notice under Section 52(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1959—Jurisdiction of Civil Court—Maintainability jurisdiction of the Civil Court was questioned in a case related to ...

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Limitation Act, 1963 Article 58—Second appeal—The Supreme Court held that the suit, as originally filed, did not require a declaration of ownership since there was no dispute about the appellant's title. The key issue was whether the appellant could prove possession on the date of the suit and whether the respondents could establish adverse possession. The case was remanded to the High Court to consider the merits of the suit and counter-claim, except for the amendment issue. (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Section 100—Limitation Act, 1963 Article 58—Second appeal—Suit for a perpetual injunction regarding a property he claimed was allotted to him under a family settlement after his father's demise—The respondents a...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 39 Rule 1(c)—Suit for Injunction—Counter Claim Allowed—In a regular second appeal, the plaintiff challenged the appellate court's judgment, which reversed the trial court's decree granting an injunction in favor of the plaintiff—The trial court had held the plaintiff in lawful possession based on revenue records and other public documents—However, the appellate court found that the trial court had ignored key documentary evidence presented by the defendant, including an agreement from 1976 authorizing the defendant to manage the land and grow crops—The appellate court concluded that the defendant's possession since 1976 was proven and reversed the trial court’s findings—The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, ruling t...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—Second appeal dismissed—No substantial question of law—Suit for injunction—The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, claiming ownership and possession of the disputed property—The defendants contended that the property had been sold to them by the plaintiff’s father, supported by an unregistered sale deed—The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff was not in possession of the property—The first appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment—In the second appeal, the appellant argued errors in evaluating the evidence, particularly the unregistered sale deed and revenue records—However, the High Court noted that both lower courts properly appreciated the evidence and no substantial question of law...

Civil Procedure—Order 1 Rule 10 CPC—Impleadment of Parties—Dominus Litis—Suit for Injunction—Plaintiff’s Right to Choose Defendants—Improper Allowance of Third Party Application—In a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, the petitioner-plaintiff challenged the trial court's order allowing an impleadment application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by a third party claiming to represent a trust—The trial court, in a cryptic manner, allowed the application solely on the ground of avoiding multiplicity of litigation, without examining whether the applicant was a necessary or proper party to the suit—The High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the plaintiff, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to litigate against a party against whom no relief is claimed&mdas...

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)—Order 1, Rule 10—Impleadment of Parties—Suit for Injunction—In this case, the revisionist challenged the trial court's order rejecting his application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, seeking to be impleaded as a party in a suit for injunction (Suit No. 500 of 2012)—The court observed that the suit sought injunction against a third party and no relief was sought against the revisionist—The revisionist claimed to be a coparcener of the property in question and expressed concerns about potential alienation—However, the court noted that the revisionist had already filed a separate suit (Suit No. 2329 of 2014) for declaration of his coparcenary rights over the same property, where the matter of rights would be adjudicated—Citing precedents, the court held that ...

Limitation Act, 1963—Section 14—Appellant filed a suit for injunction in the Delhi District Court (Suit No. 102 of 1994), but during its pendency, Respondent No. 1 obtained registration of the trademark. The appellant promptly filed a petition for rectification and cancellation of the trademark under Sections 45 and 46 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act on 2.5.1995. Despite being returned for territorial jurisdiction reasons, the Appellate Board erroneously dismissed the petition for a perceived 10-year delay. The court finds the appellant's pursuit of the remedy genuine and, due to the wrong filing court, applies the principles of Section 14 of the Limitations Act, allowing the appeal. ...

Wakf Act—Section 83, 83(9)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 9—Suit for injunction—Court of Munsiff, Manjeri, which was subsequently transferred to the Wakf Tribunal, Kozhikode—The suit sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with the administration, management, and peaceful enjoyment of a Mosque, madrassa, and associated assets—The Wakf Tribunal decreed the suit in favor of the appellant—However, the respondents contested this decision and filed a Civil Revision Petition before the Kerala High Court—The High Court set aside the Wakf Tribunal's decision, stating that a suit for injunction was not maintainable before the Wakf Tribunal, citing a previous Supreme Court judgment—This appeal challenges the High Court's order—The Supreme Court found that...

Easements Act, 1882—Section 4, Section 52—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Order 39 Rule 4—Appeal arises from a dispute over an injunction application in a suit for declaration and injunction—The High Court, under Article 227, set aside the concurrent findings of lower courts favoring the appellant's injunction—The Supreme Court holds that the findings aren't perverse, and the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction—The matter involves the right to use a gate for access to a hypermarket—The Court directs restoration of lower court orders, sustaining the injunction till suit disposal—The Court emphasizes early suit resolution and dismisses an application for direction—The leave and license agreement's termination doesn't negate the in...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 11—Hindu Religious Institutions Act - Section 26—Suit for injunction where defendants, in their written statement, assured not to interfere with plaintiffs' possession until the lease's expiry—The trial court, overlooking this concession, delved into other issues, including title—The High Court negated the appeal on res judicata, asserting the title was directly at issue—The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the defendants' concession on interference should have led to a straightforward dismissal—The trial court's findings on title were crucial, and the lack of an appeal against them reinforced their validity—The appeal was allowed, affirming the trial court's decision on title. ...

Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 108—Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 115—Judgment setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge, which allowed an appeal against the trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction in a suit for injunction—The suit concerned the demolition of a portion of the premises by the tenants, who claimed permission through a no-objection certificate—The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 was challenged—The Supreme Court clarified that while a writ petition was maintainable, the jurisdiction was limited—The court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months, maintaining the status quo, and emphasized that its observations should not influence the trial court's decision—The appeals were disp...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 22 Rule 4(3)—Appellants filed a suit for title declaration and injunction concerning lands purportedly willed to them by Kishan Singh—One defendant, Lal Singh, died during the suit—The appellants sought to set aside abatement and bring Lal Singh's legal representatives on record, but the trial court's decision was challenged in a revision filed by Lal Singh's heirs and other defendants—The High Court ruled that as mutation was jointly made in all defendants' names, the suit couldn't proceed against the remaining defendants alone, thus abating the entire suit—Moreover, the delay in filing the application was deemed unexplained—The Supreme Court found no fault in the High Court's judgment, affirming that the suit had indeed abated in ent...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 80—Jurisdiction of civil courts over railway charges under a contract—The plaintiff sought an injunction against the railway administration to prevent the realization of increased siding charges and cancellation of the agreement—The core issue was whether civil courts could adjudicate the reasonableness of the charges, given the Indian Railways Act, 1890's provisions—The trial court had deemed the charges unjustified and illegal but found it had jurisdiction to review only the contractual aspects—The High Court upheld this but reversed on jurisdiction, asserting that the civil court could determine the reasonableness of charges—The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, concluding that Section 26 of the Act did not bar civil court jurisdi...