Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Masjid Shahid Ganj Mosque vs Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... on 2 May, 1940
In Masjid Shahid Ganj case (supra) the Lahore High Court was dealing with a matter wherein the plaintiffs had brought a suit in the lower Court praying for a declaration that a certain parcel of land was the site of a waki mosque, and it could not be used for any purpose which, was opposed to the purposes of a mosque, and consequential relief was claimed in the form of a mandatory injunction including for the direction to re-construct the portion of the mosque which was demolised. In the alternative, the plaintiffs had claimed damages for the demolition so that they might rebuild it in its former shape. However the plaintiffs did not sue for possession. In the background of those facts and considering the contention raised, it was observed that though the plaintiffs had chosen to sue only for a declaration of their rights and certain mandatory injunctions, no satisfactory explanation was given as to why the appellants did not sue for possession. Considering the fact that the possession of the defendants being unlawful according to the allegations of the plaintiffs, the relief for possession was clearly open to them. In the circumstances, it was not open to the plaintiffs to sue for a mere declaration and injunction as they did and the suit was held to be liable to be dismissed on that count itself. It is well established that when it is open to a person to sue for possession, he cannot be granted relief in the form of an injunction.
Badat And Co vs East India Trading Co on 10 May, 1963
In such an event, the admission itself being proved, no other proof is necessary and the law in that regard is well settled since the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Badat and Co. v. Eastern India Trading Co., .
Union Of India & Ors vs Dhanwanti Devi & Ors on 21 August, 1996
In Union of India and others v. Dhanwanti Devi and others, it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. Besides, the decisions of the Kerala High Court referred to above and relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondents do not lay down the correct law.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs A. Viswam (Dead) By Lrs on 9 February, 1996
The said proposition of law is no more a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (dead) by LRs., and Premji Ratansey Shah and others v. Union of India and others, .
Premji Ratansey Shah And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 July, 1994
The said proposition of law is no more a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. A. Viswam (dead) by LRs., and Premji Ratansey Shah and others v. Union of India and others, .