Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Julian D.J. Harry vs P.K. Khanna on 26 September, 2001

Kishanlal Bheel vs Dinesh Kumar on 11 November, 2022

blh izdkj bl laca/k esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 210 Julian D.J. Harry V. P.K. Khanna dh uthj ds iSjk la[;k 10 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k gS %& "10. There is an apprehension of the appellant that the respondent will raise the construction over the plot in dispute or may sale the property in dispute to any person. Defendant No.2 since purchased the property by registered sale deed and the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie case in his favour then the defendant has a right to enjoy the property subject to the decision of the suit only. The right against the alienation of the property during the pendency of the suit has been taken care by the statutory provisions of Lis Pendens and if the respondent defendant No.2 raises any construction knowing it well that there is serious dispute and in case the plaintiff succeeds, the title may pass on the plaintiff, even then if the defendant will raise the construction, the defendant will not get any equity in his favour nor he will be entitled for any relief on the ground of investing money over the plot in dispute for the purpose of raising the construction or doing anything advantagious to the respondent defendant No.2. It is made clear that in case if the property is alienated by the respondent defendant No.2, he will mention the fact with respect to the pendency of this suit in the sale deed as any person is bound to (Downloaded on 14/11/2022 at 08:45:07 PM) (10 of 10) [CMA-867/2022] disclose the fact of litigation while selling the property."
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M G Vyas - Full Document

Gomti Devi And Anr. vs Ashok Bhandari And Anr. on 16 May, 2005

37. In this case, as held above, the plaintiffs failed to prove prima-facie case and this Court is of the view that loss of the defendants cannot be assessed and compensation cannot be adequate relief. The defendants/ appellants will also have a risk of investing thousands or lakhs of rupees just which may be balancing factor. This Court is of the view that the judgments which have been relied upon by learned Counsel for. the plaintiffs and which have been delivered in the facts of the case and there are several other judgments and orders by which constructions were allowed on furnishing undertaking by the Court and which are (1) Julian DJ. Harryl v. P.K. Khanna 2002 (1) WLC (Raj.) 210 (by me), (2) Fool Kumari Devi v. Krishna Deo Upadhya and Anr. 1999 (1) CCC 252 (Patna) and (3) R.S. Arya v. T.R. Dewan reported in 1999 (Suppl.) CCC 168 (Delhi). In some of the judgments, the view has been taken that in a suit for specific performance of contract, injunction cannot be -ranted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - P C Tatia - Full Document

Natha Singh vs Smt. Balvindra Kaur & Anr on 7 January, 2009

Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Julian D.J. Harry vs. P.K. Khanna reported in 2002(1) WLC (Raj.) 210. The facts of the said case are entirely different. In that case, the courts found that there was no prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and in that situation, the construction of property in suit sought to be raised by the defendant, was not interfered by this Court. In this case, as stated above, all the three ingredients were found by the two courts below in favour of the plaintiff.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - P C Tatia - Full Document
1