Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
M/S. K.M.R.Estates And Builders Pvt. ... vs Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildhar, on 20 March, 2025
cites
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Section 5 in The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
16. The question is whether it was necessary for the
appellant to claim a declaration of title. On this aspect,
a decision of this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
Buchi Reddy (Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy,
(2008) 4 SCC 594] is relevant. Paras 13 and 14 of the
said decision read thus: (SCC pp. 603-604)
"13. The general principles as to when a mere suit
for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is
necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or
possession with injunction as a consequential
relief, are well settled. We may refer to them
briefly.
Tanu Ram Bora vs Promod Ch Das (Dead) Thr. Lrs. on 8 February, 2019
15. By virtue of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
there is no quarrel about the proposition that by virtue of
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, the appellant in the
present case acquired valid title, rights and possession from
their vendors by virtue of subsequent perfection of title of their
vendors. The appellant therefore clearly established its
16
possession, rights and interest over the suit lands and the
respondents never seriously disputed the title of the appellant.
As observed above the Ex.A41 Gazette notification and Ex.B2
notice was never disputed whereby Sy.No.02 was excluded from
surplus land and Exs.A16 and A17 were not disputed whereby
the conclusive proof of title of the predecessors of the appellant
was confirmed by the respondents. In the circumstances the
appeal is to be allowed and the decree for perpetual injunction
as sought for is allowed.
Section 6 in Kerala Record of Rights Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 [Entire Act]
K.M. Krishna Reddy vs Vinod Reddy on 6 October, 2023
13. There is substance in submission of the counsel for the
appellant that in the light of such voluminous documentary
evidence the dismissal of the suit on the premise that mere suit
for injunction is not maintainable and in the absence of
declaratory relief is erroneous. The Counsel had also relied
upon the Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
K.M. Krishna Reddy v. Vinod Reddy,1 that when there is no
serious dispute about the title the mere suit for injunction is
maintainable. The Para numbers 15 to 17 of the above
judgment are referred below:
1