Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.65 seconds)
Ram Shankar Shukla (D) By Lrs. vs Ganesh Sewa Ashram Sanstha on 4 April, 2006 cites

Krothapalli Satyanarayana vs Koganti Ramaiah And Ors. on 11 March, 1983

Ultimately, the suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted 15-4-1998. On the basis of these facts the learned Counsel submitted that the suit for mandatory Injunction is not maintainable as it was not brought with promptitude and there was delay in filing the present suit. Elaborating the argument he submitted that on the facts of the present case, the remedy, if any, of the plaintiff was to file a suit for possession of the disputed accommodation after seeking ejectment of the defendant. Strong reliance has been placed by him on a Apex Court judgment, Krothapalli Satyanaryana v. Koganti Ramaiah , in support of above plea, wherein the Apex Court refused to grant the relief of mandatory injunction to remove wall which amounted unauthorized encroachment over the plaintiffs property. The facts of that case disclose that the wall in question was constructed in the year 1956 and the suit for mandatory injunction was instituted in 1965. The Apex Court found that both the appellate Court and High Court have concurrently held that the plaintiff was guilty of acquiescence as the wall was constructed to his knowledge in 1956. On these facts situation the relief for mandatory injunction was denied.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh on 12 March, 1985

9. Coming to the legal proposition as urged by the appellant with regard to the non-maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction, it is clear that the said controversy has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh . It has been held therein that a licensee must be deemed to be always a licensee. It is not open to him, during the subsistence of licence or in the suit for recovery of possession of the property instituted after the revocation of licence to set up title of the property in himself or anyone else. It is duty of licensee to surrender possession of the property as soon as the licence comes to an end. In para 7 of the report it has been observed that it is for the licensee to show that the suit was filed after considerable delay which will disentitle the licensor to the discretionary relief. The Apex Court has further observed that even if there was some delay, attempt should be made to avoid multiplicity of suits and the licensor should not be driven to file another round of suit with all the attendant delay, trouble and expense. "The suit is in effect one for possession though couched in the form a suit for mandatory injunction as what would be given to the plaintiff in case he succeeds is possession of property to which he may be found to be entitled", as observed by the Apex Court therein. Ultimately, it found:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 319 - A Varadarajan - Full Document

Joseph Severance And Ors vs Benny Mathew And Ors on 23 September, 2005

10. The above dictum has been followed and reiterated in a recent judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Joseph Severance and Ors. v. Benny Mathew . On the facts of the present case there is no unreasonable delay in filing the suit. Successive registered notice demanding the vacant possession was sent to the defendant. The suit was filed when the defendant failed to vacate the disputed accommodation. Plea of acquiescence or delay on the part of the plaintiff in not instituting the suit at the earliest opportunity is essentially a question of fact which needs pleading and evidence. No such question was raised before the Courts below and the defendant cannot be permitted to raise a factual controversy not pleaded in the written statement for the first in second appeal. Apart from it, on the facts of the present case, it is not possible to hold that there was unreasonable delay to disentitle the plaintiff to get the relief claimed for.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 174 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

13. A perusal of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that High Court cannot proceed to hear Second Appeal without formulating substantial question of the law involved in the appeal. The Apex Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purshottam Tiwari, has explained the meaning of phrase "substantial question of law". It has been held that a point of law which admits of no two opinions may be a proposition of law but cannot be a substantial question of law. To be 'substantial', a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent and must have a material bearing on the' decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by Court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. It has been further held that question of law raised for the first time before the High Court is not question involved in the case 'unless it goes to the root of the matter'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1