Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalpat Kumar and another vs.
Prahlad Singh and others (1992) 1 SCC 719, has categorically
held that prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie
title, which requires to be established on evidence at the trial.
Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs Daya Ram Nagina Ram And Ors. on 12 May, 1961
In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment
rendered by a Division Bench, of Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram v. Daya Ram Nagina Ram,
AIR 1961 Punjab 528, wherein it has been held as under:
M/S Gujarat Pottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors on 4 August, 1995
is also of utmost importance. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case M/S
Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd. & Ors. v. The Coca Cola Co. & Ors.,
AIR 1995 2372. In case a party seeking injunction fails to make
out any of the three ingredients, it would not be entitled to
injunction.
Karam Singh & Anr vs Lakhbir Kaur & Ors on 25 October, 2010
In Karam Singh vs. Lakhbir Kaur, 2011 (3) Civil
Court Cases 162, it has been held that relief of injunction can
be sought by a co-sharer against other co-sharers when such a
co-sharer happens to be in exclusive possession of the land to
the exclusion of other co-sharers, but when the possession of all
the co-sharers is joint, relief of injunction cannot be sought by
either of the co-sharers and the only relief which is available to
the co-sharer is to seek partition by metes and bounds.
Shiv Chand vs Manghru And Ors. on 6 March, 2007
Sushma (2014 (2) Shim. L.C. 1003). Having carefully perused
the aforesaid judgments pressed into service by learned Counsel
appearing for the plaintiff, while asserting claim of the plaintiff,
this Court finds that ratio laid down in aforesaid judgments is
with regard to rights of cosharer in the joint land, particularly
where nature of the suit land is joint and land has not been
changed and there is no kind of construction activity by any of
cosharers. Very gist of the aforesaid judgments is that
possession of one cosharer is possession of all the cosharers in
joint land till the time same is partitioned by metes and bound.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Kapoor vs Murtu Devi on 24 June, 2015
11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ashok Kapoor vs.
Murtu Devi 2016 (1) Shim. LC 207, had an occasion to deal
with the issue of injunction, wherein it, having taken note of
various judgments rendered by Constitutional courts,
concluded as under:
M/S Best Sellers Retail(I)P.Ltd vs M/S Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.& Ors on 8 May, 2012
In this regard, reliance is placed upon
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Best Sellers
Retail (India) Private Ltd. vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ld. And
others, (2012) 6 SCC 792, wherein, it has been held as under:
Deepak Sood And Others vs Shri Roshan Lal Ias And Another on 21 July, 2009
In Sanjay Sood vs. Roshan Lal and another, Latest
HLJ 2006(1) 209 HPHC, it has been categorically held that
when it stands established that co-owner is in exclusive
possession of any property and he/she, after having spent huge
sum, made some improvements, no injunction should be
granted.
1