Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
It has also been noted above that in view of an
adverse title being set up by the defendants, it was incumbent upon the
plaintiff to seek declaration of title notwithstanding the fact that he is in
possession of the property, as held in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P.
Buchi Reddy AIR 2008 SC 2033. Moreover, it is not the case of the plaintiff
that he has purchased the property by registered documents conferring
upon him the right to own and occupy the suit property. The prayers made in
the plaint are clearly barred by law and the plaintiff has no cause of action
sustaining the scrutiny of law.
Sant Lal Jain vs Avtar Singh on 12 March, 1985
In the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh, A.I.R. 1985 SC 857, it was held
that a licencee cannot set up title in himself in order to avoid surrender of
possession of the property on termination of the licence. It was laid down that
it is the duty of such licencee to surrender possession of the property.
G.N. Mehra vs International Airports Authority Of ... on 1 February, 1996
In the case of G.N. Mehra Vs. International Airports Authority of India (IAAI),
63 (1996) DLT 62, it was laid down that after expiry of licence, the licencee is
not entitled to any injunction against the true owner. Grant of such injunction
would amount to perpetuating his unlawful possession.
Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs Hotel Imperial And Ors. on 9 January, 2006
7 of 10
8
In the case of Thomas Cook Limited Vs. Hotel Imperial & Ors., 127 (2006)
DLT 431, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took note of a number of other
decisions on the subject including that of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa
Naidu, I (2004) SLT 675, and held that a licencee is a permissive occupant.
His occupation does not amount to "possession" and therefore he is not
entitled to the grant of injunction against dispossession.
Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr on 15 December, 2003
7 of 10
8
In the case of Thomas Cook Limited Vs. Hotel Imperial & Ors., 127 (2006)
DLT 431, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi took note of a number of other
decisions on the subject including that of Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa
Naidu, I (2004) SLT 675, and held that a licencee is a permissive occupant.
His occupation does not amount to "possession" and therefore he is not
entitled to the grant of injunction against dispossession.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
In the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A Vismam, 1996(2) R.R.R. 353,
it was held that a trespasser is not entitled to injunction against dispossession
by the true owner.
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
12. Having perused the record, it is pertinent to note that the reasons stated
above for dismissal of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code
of Civil Procedure hold good even if the contents of the plaint are treated to
be true and correct. Although the case is at an early stage, the plaint is
being scrutinized to assess the maintainability of the suit in view of the
observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sopan Sukhdeo
Sable and Others V. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others (2004) 3
SCC 137 in which it was held that it is obligatory for the Court to reject the
8 of 10
9
plaint in the event of noticing any infirmities mentioned in Order 7 rule 11 of
Code of Civil Procedure. As elaborated above, in the present case, the
plaintiff is seeking injunction restraining his dispossession and has not
sought declaration of title although he is not entitled to any injunction unless
he establishes his title.
T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977
In the case of T. Arivandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another, (1977) 4 SCC 467,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if on a meaningful, not formal,
reading of the plaint if is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of
not disclosing a clear right to sue, the court should reject the plaint under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.