Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.68 seconds)Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
On the other hand, the defendant was
successful in showing that the property in question
was purchased by Smt.Savitha, the vendor of the
defendant. Subsequently in 2010, she has purchased
the property and the tax receipts, khatha extract, all
15
reveals, the defendant vendor was continued to be in
possession and later the defendant was in possession
of the schedule property. Such being the case, filing
the suit of bare injunction, is not maintainable. As
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ANATHULA
SUDHAKAR VS. P.BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY L.RS
& ORS reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2692, for suit for
bare injunction is not maintainable
Accordingly, I answer the point Nos.1 to 3, in the
negative.
1