Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.59 seconds)

Smt. Damyanti Devi vs Oic Records on 31 January, 2015

In the light of aforecited observations made by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decided cases of Kishan Singh vs Sucha Singh (Supra) and Sushil Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ram Prakash & Ors (Supra) respectively, it can be safely concluded that when a plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy available for grant of a particular relief through usual mode of legal proceedings then a suit for injunction cannot be filed for obtaining the same relief. Injunction can only be granted when there is no alternate equally efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed her rights to the family pension of late Ex.Sowar Sh. Satbir Singh in the capacity CS No. 177/13 23 / 31 of his legally wedded wife or widow and ordinarily a legally wedded wife is entitled to family pension and superannuation benefits of her husband on the basis of nomination made by the husband in his service and superannuation records subject to the provisions of the service rules applicable to the deceased husband. However, in the present case, plaintiff's name has not been mentioned in the nomination form filled by late Ex. Sowar Sh. Satbir Singh in his service records. On the contrary, the name of one Smt. Chandrawati Devi is mentioned as the wife of late Ex. Sowar Sh. Satbir Singh in the records of the defendant office. Moreover, the plaintiff has also failed to prove that Smt. Chandrawati Devi, the first wife of Sh. Satbir Singh had expired by producing the death certificate of Smt. Chandrawati Devi. Besides, the plaintiff has claimed her rights to the family pension of late Sh. Satbir Singh on the basis of her claim that late Sh. Satbir Singh had obtained divorce from Smt. Chandrawati Devi. However, no decree of divorce passed by any court of law for the purpose of dissolving the marriage of late Sh. Satbir Singh and Smt. Chandrawati Devi has been placed on record by the plaintiff in order to prove her claim that late Ex. Sowar Sh. Satbir Singh had obtained divorce from his first wife Smt. Chandrawati Devi and therefore the plaintiff herself was entitled to receive family pension of late Sh. Satbir Singh. Nevertheless plaintiff still had an equally efficacious remedy available to her for grant of relief claimed through the present suit and this remedy existed in the form of usual mode of proceedings, that is, a suit for obtaining a succession certificate to succeed to the estates of late Sh. Satbir Singh wherein the entitlement of the plaintiff to receive the family pension of late Ex.Sowar Sh.Satbir Singh would have been decided on merit after giving due notice to all effected parties.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardare vs Vijay Singh & Ors on 21 April, 2012

16. Further, such a suit lies before the revenue assistant in accordance with entry 11 of Schedule 1 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and has to conform to the procedure laid down in Section 57 the Act. As per Section 55 of the Act, the Gaon Sabha has to be made a party in every such suit. The competence of this court to entertain such a suit is expressly barred by the provisions of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cs No. 166/13 vs Sushil on 16 November, 2013

She has no where stated in the plaint that she in possession of suit property also she has not filed even a single document to show that she is in possession of suit property. It is settled principle of law that the co­ owner has to seek partition of the suit property and a simplicitor suit for injunction is not maintainable when the co­owner is not in possession of the suit property. It is relevant here to mention the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case titled as Kishan Singh vs Sucha 2 of 5 Singh (2008) 2 PLR 707 wherein the trial court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the defendant went in appeal and the Ld. First Appellate Court dismissed the suit on one of the ground that alternate efficacious remedy was available with the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached the Hon'ble High Court and in the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court following observations were made by the Hon'ble High Court:
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Leela Ram Deceased Th Lr Ved Parkash vs Ramji Lal Deceased Th Lrs Vashudev And ... on 6 November, 2025

(h) of Specific Relief Act if an efficacious remedy is available then no injunction can be granted. Reference to be made in case titled Kishan Singh Vs. Sucha Singh, reported in 2008-2, Latest Judicial Reports 663, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that suit for injunction is not maintainable where the plaintiff has equally efficacious remedy available - Remedy for getting share in joint property is partitioned and not injunction.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Tirath @ Laddi & Ors vs Kailash Chander on 24 September, 2018

The trial Court in para 8 of the judgment has held that the suit property is in exclusive possession of the plaintiff and defendants as it is vacant plot and parties are co-sharers in the suit property, there is no imminent threat proved on the file that defendants are going to change nature of the suit property by raising construction. The defendants have alleged that plaintiff has already constructed two shops in the suit property which included khasra No.223. So he cannot seek the relief of injunction as he concealed material facts from the Court. Further held that no injunction can be issued against the co-sharer and suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by relying upon judgments of this Court Kishan Singh Vs. Sucha Singh, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 394 and Ram Chander Vs. Gobind Ram and others, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 87.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document
1