Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.11 seconds)
Satnam Singh vs Gursher Singh And Others on 5 October, 2016 cites

T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003

[6]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff being in possession of the land on the strength of sale deed was entitled to ad interim injunction till final decision of the suit. Learned counsel relied upon T. Lakshmipathi and others vs. P. Nithyananda Reddy and others, (2003) 5 SCC to contend that one of the co-sharer cannot take exclusive possession of the property, nor committ an act of waste, ouster or legitimate use of the land as by doing so, he would render the whole of the property unfit for the use of other co-owners and great prejudice would be caused to the co-sharers as the act of one of the co-sharer would amount to ouster of others without there being any exclusive possession of other co-owners. [7]. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that co-owner cannot raise construction before getting the land partitioned as it would affect the rights of other co-owners. Defendants cannot be permitted to raise construction over a specified portion of joint land so as to deprive other co-sharers from the use of joint land. By doing such act, defendants would violate the concept of co-sharership. In the aforesaid context, 4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2016 02:51:54 ::: CR No.6472 of 2016 5 learned counsel referred to Rishal Singh and ors. vs. Shri Bhagwan & Anr., 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 393.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 717 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), ... vs Baldev Dass on 15 October, 2004

[8]. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that at the stage of grant of temporary injunction only three principles are to be appreciated i.e. existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss likely to caused in the event of non-grant of ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. By relying upon Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 488, learned counsel ultimately submitted that order of status quo was just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. [9]. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondents denied the assertion made by the petitioner and pleaded that defendants being in possession want to utilise the land for the purposes of installation of petrol pump for which necessary compliance from different departments of the Government has been made. Learned Senior counsel pointed out that the general power of attorney of the plaintiff, herself was not sure with regard to placement of her land as she moved an application before the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of the land in question soon before the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 5 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-10-2016 02:51:54 ::: CR No.6472 of 2016 6 claimed their exclusive possession over the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 01.02.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 436 - Full Document

Ram Chander vs Bhim Singh And Others on 1 November, 2012

Subsequently another Full Bench of this Court in Ram Chander vs. Bhim Singh and others, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 685 re-affirmed the aforesaid view. [13]. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that mere making of construction on common land would not amount to ouster of other co-sharers and a co-sharer cannot not seek injunction against the other co-sharer from raising construction.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 61 - L N Mittal - Full Document

(O&M;) Jangir Singh vs Naranjan Singh on 30 September, 2014

In view of law laid down in Jangir Singh vs. Naranjan Singh and others, 2015(1) RCR (Civil) 49, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that equal and efficacious remedy available before the plaintiff was to seek partition of the land and no injunction can be granted against the defendants being co-sharers. Learned Senior counsel highlighted that when the suit itself is not maintainable, grant of temporary injunction therein would amount to exceeding jurisdiction.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1