Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.74 seconds)
Nihal Singh And Ors. vs Chandari Devi And Ors. on 4 December, 2001 cites

Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary And Ors. vs Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar And ... on 13 May, 1983

In Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Ors. v. Sitaram Bhalchandra Suktankar and Ors., which is also relied upon by the appellants there were disputes about title of a land. The plaintiff and defendants were found in possession of half portion of the disputed land. Application for grant of ad interim injunction was filed. The Supreme Court on peculiar facts of the case held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 60 - D A Desai - Full Document

M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors on 4 August, 1995

12. Let us now apply the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited case on the facts of the case in hand. The appellants that land in Khasra No.32 was owned by Ram Phal. He do not claim that entire land of that Khasra belonged to him. Even the khatoni for the year 1947-48 relied upon by them show that Ram Phal was not owner of land of entire Khasra No.32. Moreover the appellants themselves allege that after the death of Ram Phal his heirs had separated and divided the land and they were in occupation of separate pieces of land. But when did they partition the property, among whom it was partitioned, which heir got which portion of the land has not been revealed. Even it is not explained how the suit land was left undivided when rest of the land was partitioned/decided between heirs of Ram Phal. Land adjoining the disputed land is owned allegedly by the son of the appellants as per site plan filed by him. How he happened to own that land is also not explained. Therefore, prima facie there is no facts and circumstances to suggest that Ram Phal was owner of the suit land other than the bald allegation of the appellants. On the other hand the respondents are in possession of the suit land and have also built upon it. For all these reasons the learned Additional District Judge was justified in holding that no case is made out by the appellant prima facie for grant of interlocutory order. The respondents who are in possession of the suit property will suffer greater inconvenience if ad interim injunction is granted than the appellant if interlocutory order is declined as it is their bald allegation that suit land is joint property of the parties. When the appellants failed to make out a prima facie case and balance of convenience being in their favor there is no question of the appellants suffering irreparable injury if interim injunction is refused. Moreover there is no allegation that the appellants have any intention to transfer the property which they themselves are using.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 439 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1