Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Sahebgouda (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors vs Ogeppa & Ors on 28 March, 2003

Bimla Chaudhary vs Uoi & Ors. on 15 July, 2009

However, the question here is whether the appellant-plaintiff has any right to ask for the discretionary relief of injunction. Since the appellant-plaintiff has till date not even initiated any proceedings to have a declaration from the competent Court that she is the owner/ bhumidar of the suit land and she is also admitting that as per the revenue records the suit land belonged to the Gaon Sabha upto the year 1966 when it came to be vested in the Central Government the RFA No. 381/2004 19 trial Court has rightly held her to be a rank trespasser over the suit land. I also do not find any fault with the conclusion of the trial Court that being a rank trespasser the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of injunction. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in "Muddanna vs. Panthanagere Group Panchayat"(supra) cited by learned senior counsel for the appellant in support of the argument that even a person in wrongful possession of some property is entitled to the relief of injunction. A perusal of this judgment shows that there was a serious dispute regarding the title of the suit property between the parties and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had also observed that "it is nobody‟s case that the appellant-plaintiffs are rank trespassers." Observing so, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the appellant therein was entitled to the relief of injunction against forcible dispossession from the suit property. This judgment, however, does not come to the rescue of the appellant-plaintiff since in the present case, as has been observed already, the appellant-plaintiff despite having become aware long time back that in the revenue records the suit land had been shown to be belonging to the Gaon Sabha and not to her predecessors-in-interest has not approached the Revenue Court constituted under the Delhi Reforms Act to have a declaration that the suit land never belonged to the Gaon Sabha and her predecessors-in-interest were the bhumidars thereof she was accepting DDA‟s right/title over the suit land.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - P K Bhasin - Full Document

Church Of North Of India vs Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors on 3 May, 2005

In Sahebgouda (Dead) By LRs. and Others Vs. Ogeppa and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 151] the allegations made in the plaint showed that the only right claimed by the Appellants was that of being ancestral pujaris of the temple. They did not claim to be the trustees of any trust. No declaration regarding the existence or otherwise of the trust or any particular property is the property of such trust had been claimed and in that view of the matter, it was held that the reliefs so claimed do not come within the purview of Section 19 or Section 79 of the Act wherefor the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner will have the exclusive jurisdiction to hold an inquiry and give a decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 97 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Dr. H.P.Jagadeesh vs Smt.Chandrakala on 20 February, 2023

22. I have carefully perused the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in (2003) 10 SCC 349 - Muddanna and others Vs. Panthanagere Group Panchayth, Kengeri Hobli, their lordship held that, plaintiff cannot be dispossessed unless due process of law and also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1997 KAR 999 - P.Fatesh Ahmed Saheb by LRs Vs. Andur Usman Saheb by LRs and others, their lordship held that, the position is well settled that a person in settled possession cannot be OS.No.2622/2014 21 dispossessed even by the owner, otherwise than by proceeding in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prime Cottex Pvt Ltd vs Bank Of Baroda on 18 December, 2019

Therein five principles were laid down stating :­ "22. The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a civil court requires strict interpretation. The court, it is well settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court. The burden of proof in this behalf shall be on the party who asserts that the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted. (See Sahebgouda v. Ogeppa, (2003) 6 SCC 151.) Even otherwise, the civil court's jurisdiction is not completely ousted under the Companies Act, 1956."
Gujarat High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 1 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Sh. Jaspal Singh vs Sh.Rakesh Yadav on 26 February, 2021

In State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh (1989) 2 SCC 505, Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Shobha Venkat Rao (1989) 4 SCC 131 and Muddanna Vs. Panthanagere Group Panchayat, Kengeri Hobli (2003) 10 SCC 349, it has been held that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain in the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by due process of law."
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005

Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents to some other judgments holding the right to perform puja in the temple as a private right of the pujaris or archaks and the same cannot be defeated by invoking section 50 the Bombay Public Trusts Act or Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We need not refer to all the judgments in view of the fact that the law on this point is well settled. We only refer to the latest judgment of this court in Sahebgouda (Deceased) vs. Ogeppa and ors [ 2003 (6) SCC 151]. This case pertains to a suit for declaration of Pujaris' Pujariki right of performing puja. The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the aforesaid right. Objection was taken about the maintainability of the civil suit in view of the provision of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. However, the objection was turned down holding that the reliefs claimed in the suit do not come within the ambit of Sections 19 or 79 of the Act which gave jurisdiction to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide certain issues like existence of public trust or whether a property is a trust property. In this suit brought by the plaintiffs to establish his right of archakship the only relief claimed was a declaration regarding the right of the plaintiffs- appellants to function as hereditary pujaris or for pujariki rights in performing puja in the temple and consequential decree for injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering with the aforesaid rights of the plaintiffs. The facts of this case are somewhat similar to those of the case in hand. It was held that the case was clearly out of the purview of the barring provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in this judgment. It is held that the present suit is not barred by provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Since the trial of the suit on merits has been already sufficiently delayed, the trial court may dispose of the suit on priority basis as directed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8 - A Kumar - Full Document

Swamy Atmananda & Ors vs Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam & Ors on 13 April, 2005

(g) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply. [See Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Krishna Kant and Others  (1995) 5 SCC 75, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. Ramesh Chand Agarwal - (2003) 6 SCC 220, Sahebgouda vs. Ogeppa (2003) 6 SCC 151 and Dhruv Green Field Ltd. vs. Hukam Singh (2002) 6 SCC 416].
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 49 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Vinayaka Dev Idagunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005

Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents to some other judgments holding the right to perform puja in the temple as a private right of the pujaris or archaks and the same cannot be defeated by invoking section 50 the Bombay Public Trusts Act or Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We need not refer to all the judgments in view of the fact that the law on this point is well settled. We only refer to the latest judgment of this court in Sahebgouda (Deceased) vs. Ogeppa and ors [ 2003 (6) SCC 151]. This case pertains to a suit for declaration of Pujaris' Pujariki right of performing puja. The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the aforesaid right. Objection was taken about the maintainability of the civil suit in view of the provision of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. However, the objection was turned down holding that the reliefs claimed in the suit do not come within the ambit of Sections 19 or 79 of the Act which gave jurisdiction to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to decide certain issues like existence of public trust or whether a property is a trust property. In this suit brought by the plaintiffs to establish his right of archakship the only relief claimed was a declaration regarding the right of the plaintiffs- appellants to function as hereditary pujaris or for pujariki rights in performing puja in the temple and consequential decree for injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering with the aforesaid rights of the plaintiffs. The facts of this case are somewhat similar to those of the case in hand. It was held that the case was clearly out of the purview of the barring provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in this judgment. It is held that the present suit is not barred by provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Accordingly, no interference is called for with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed. Since the trial of the suit on merits has been already sufficiently delayed, the trial court may dispose of the suit on priority basis as directed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next