dispossession or
dispossession without consent by the Plaintiff is an essential
ingredient and in the present case Defendant never admitted that he
had forcibly dispossessed ... dispossession restricted to a period of 6 months prior to filing of the
suit and the dispossession contemplated is forcible dispossession. The
proceedings under Section
before the Court. On 21.3.1997 again an attempt was made to forcibly dispossess the petitioner. FIR No. 137/97 under Section ... land and had been in possession thereof but the petitioner had forcibly dispossessed him and as such the learned SDM was fully justified in passing
appellant/plaintiff for
permanent injunction restraining respondent/defendant from forcibly
dispossessing the appellant/plaintiff from property No.A-188, Main
RSA No.158/2017 Page ... order dated 12th February, 2013 the
respondent/defendant was restrained from forcibly dispossessing the
appellant/plaintiff from the property and the appellant/plaintiff
relegated
against the
judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018, on account of their forcible
dispossession by the Respondents and also filed an appeal being ... Plaintiffs; (d) Defendants did not lead evidence to show their forcible
dispossession during the pendency of the suit and Defendant
Tenancy (Act Svi of 1887). On the allegations that they were forcibly dispossessed by the landlords on October 6, 1958, the tenants filed suit ... entered into possession of the same and that there was no forcible dispossession, as alleged, and further that the suit having been filed after
suit No.300/1997, alleging therein,
that respondent No.1 had forcibly dispossessed him from the
suit property on 24.06.1997 and since this ... from the suit
property he i.e. the respondent No.1 forcibly dispossessed
him from the suit property; (vii) the respondent No.3 had
produced
case of the plaintiff that he was forcibly
dispossessed in October 2014. Aggrieved by the alleged forcible
dispossession, the plaintiff filed a suit under Section ... paid rent. The petitioner claims that in October 2014, he
was forcibly dispossessed from the subject property by the
respondent and his associates, without following
registered
as DJ-8554/2016 stating that the defendant was forcibly dispossessed
from the suit property on 12.01.2014 by the respondent/plaintiffs. The
petitioner alleged ... possession of the entire
suit property or that he has been dispossessed forcibly from his portion,
by the Respondents. It has also been submitted that
Dass) his sons Nathu and Omi threatened the petitioner with forcible dispossession on the ground that they had purchased the property from S.S. Petitioner ... that S.S., Gulab, Nathu, Omi etc. were threatening him with forcible dispossession. He mentioned that eviction petition was filed by S.S. against
present
petitioner were restrained by way of an injunction from forcibly
dispossessing the plaintiffs of CS No.107/2006 i.e. the defendants ... injunction against Shri Subhash Jindal and the present petitioner from
forcibly dispossessing the respondents herein from two rooms, toilet
cum bathroom located in the suit
