V. Devarajan vs R. Purushothaman And Three Others on 4 December, 1997
In Prabhoo v. Doodh Nath, a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has held in paragraph 15, as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.04 seconds)Documents citing
Prabhoo vs Doodh Nath And Ors. on 2 December, 1977
Aditya Narayan And Another vs Hari Narayan And 9 Others on 14 January, 2020
19. It is no doubt true that being co-owners in ancestral property, all the parties were having right, interest and claim over entire disputed property but in the light of private settlement, partition by metes and bound had taken place. That being so, defendants 1 and 2 thereafter had no claim to interfere in possession of plaintiffs over part of property which was assigned, recognizing share of plaintiffs and was in their possession. Since there was partition between the parties and plaintiffs had proved their possession over land shown by letters Ja, Kha, Cha Chha, Trial Court has erred in law in declining to grant decree of injunction as prayed for and therefore, impugned judgment cannot be sustained. He placed reliance upon Supreme Court's judgment in Tanusree Basu and others vs. Ishani Prasad Basu and others (2008) 4 SCC 791; A Full Bench judgment of this Court in Chhedi Lal and another vs. Chhotey Lal, AIR 1951 (Allahabad) 199; a Single Judge's judgment of this Court in Prabhoo vs. Doodh Nath and others AIR 1978 Allahabad 178 and a Single Judge judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sucha Singh and others vs. Dalip Singh passed in Second Appeal No.3123 of 1984 (O & M) decided on 23.12.2011.
M. Muthamma vs E. Anantha Lakshmi Bai And Anr. on 24 February, 2004
E.R 576, K. Satyanarayana v. K. Ramaiah, , Prabhoo v. Doodh Nath, , Ram Shanker v. Mahatma Gandhi H.S. School, , Lalit Mohan v. Samirendra Kumar, , Dhannu Lal v. Bansidhar, AIR 1929 Pat, 349, Jangaiah v. D. Manikchandra, 1973 APHC 212.
Krishnammal vs Paramasivan on 16 December, 2011
17. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
reported in AIR 1978 Allahabad 178 (Prabhoo vs. Doodh Nath). The learned Judge
of the Allahabad High Court has held that one co-owner has not in law any right
to appropriate land to himself out of joint land against the consent of his co-
owners and the high handed action by one co-owner cannot be encouraged by courts
of law, unless some special equity is shown in favour of the defendant in a suit
for demolition of constructions.
Chander Singh & Ors. vs Kali Ram & Ors. on 13 July, 2011
"A coowner has not in law any right to appropriate land to himself out of a joint land
against the consent of his coowner. As observed in Prabhoo v. Soodh Nath, AIR
1978 Allahabad 178 : "Highhanded action by one coowner cannot be encouraged by
courts of law.""
Radha Mohan vs Shri Narain (2023:Rj-Jp:13144) on 3 July, 2023
In case of Prabhoo vs Doodh Nath And Ors.[AIR 1978
All 178], has also been relied upon by the appellant, while
dealing with an issue in respect of mandatory injunction for
demolition of construction made on joint land by a co-owner,
without the consent of other co-owner, the High Court of
Allahabad observed as in para 11 of the judgment as under:-
Karam Singh And Ors. vs Nathu Singh on 8 August, 1994
(19) The responden't having prima facie established himself to be a co-owner and the pleas of ouster and adverse possession having not been established prima facie, the impugned order cannot be faulted more so when the respondent had approached the court without much loss of time. A co-owner has not in law any right to appropriate land to himself out of a joint land against the consent of his co-owner. As observed in Prabhoo Vs. Soodh Nath : "Highhanded action by one co-owner cannot be encouraged by courts of law." Of course, each case is to be decided upon its own peculiar facts and it will be left to the court to exercise its discretion upon proof of circumstances showing which side the balance of convenience lies.
Baij Nath vs Vishwanath Pandey And Others on 12 May, 2000
In the decision in the case of Prabhoo v. Doodh Nath, 1978 ALR 109, it has been laid down that the suit for injunction against a co-owner in respect of joint family property is maintainable depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. This case also supports the view which I had taken hereinbefore.
T.S.Dayalan vs P.L.Suresh
Para 32 of the said decision is also extracted hereunder:
Khubi Ram & Ors. vs . Jagat Singh & Anr. on 30 September, 2010
In Prabhoo v. Doodh Nath, AIR 1978 All.