Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Satish Bahadur vs Hans Raj And Ors. on 27 August, 1980
Similar to the effect is the citation reported as Satish Bahadur v. Hans Raj and Ors., (1980)82 P.L.R. 737.
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Jasmer Singh And Others vs Kanwaljit Singh And Another on 3 September, 1990
Also it was held in Jasmer Singh and Ors. v. Kanwaljit Singh and Anr., (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 572, that the suit by vendee for injunction to restrain vendor from selling property to others was not maintainable in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Maman Chand vs Smt. Kamla on 5 September, 1995
In Maman Chand v. Smt. Kamla, (1996-2) P.L.R. 147, white dealing with the scope of jurisdiction of the appellate Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., it has been held that the appellate Court can interfere only with the orders of the trial Court if such orders suffer from clear violation of law or findings recorded by the trial Court on issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, are perverse; or the trial Court had not applied the settled principles of law for appreciation of pleadings and evidence produced by the parties. Mere possibility of the appellate Court forming a different opinion on the basis of facts and evidence produced by the parties cannot be a valid ground for interference by the appellate Court. The learned appellate Court did not advance any cogent reasons for allowing the application in part of the plaintiffs.
Rajendra Kumar vs Mahendra Kumar Mittal And Others on 15 May, 1991
In Rajendra Kumar v. Mahendra Kumar Mittal and Ors., AIR 1992 Allahabad 35, the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court is that suit for injunction praying that the opposite party be restrained from alienating the property allegedly purchased by the plaintiff under an agreement is not maintainable because equally efficacious relief is available to such plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance of the contract. Also it has been held that no injunction can be granted in favour of such vendee.
1