Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
NUISANCE-The common law of nuisance has co-existed with statutory controls, albeit less sophisticated, since the 19th century. There is no principle that the common law should ‘march with’ a statutory scheme covering similar subject matter. Short of express or implied statutory authority to commit a nuisance…, there is no basis, in principle or authority, for using such a statutory scheme to cut down private law rights
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order 41, Rule 5 and Section 151—Injunction—By impugned judgment, High Court rejected interim applications filed by appellants seeking status quo and stay of execution of decree in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 39, Rules 1 and 2—Temporary injunction—Ingredients—Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury—Finding on prima facie case would be a finding of fact.
Easementary right of way — It has been statutorily declared that an easement which under no circumstances can be advantageous to the dominant heritage shall cease to exist. It has been Judicially recognised that as a right of easement exists only for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage, the easement is extinguished, under Section 42 of the Act, when […]
The plaintiff can on the strength of his possession resist interference from persons who have no better title than himself to the suit property. Once it is accepted, as the trial court and the first appellate court have done, that the plaintiff was in possession of the property ever since 1947 then his possession has to be protected as against interference by someone who is not proved to have a better title than himself to the suit property.
What is required by S. 58 for the purpose of vesting is the proof of custom by which the villagers in common acquire title to any property or income. Vesting of rights takes place under S. 58 if there is proof of customary right of administration of any property or income for the benefit of the villagers in common. Unless therefore there is proof of customary right, the Panchayat cannot claim title to the property or income administered for the benefit of the villagers in common
C. Mohammad Yunus Versus Syed Unnissa and others- Specific Relief Act, 1877—Section 42—Consequential relief—Adequacy of—Determination of—Suit for declaration with consequential relief for injunction, held to be suit for declaration for further relief.
Anti-Suit Injunctions are meant to restrain a party to a suit/proceeding from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court. Simply put, an anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity.
25-03-2008 High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 100 CPC, firstly in re-examining questions of fact, secondly by going into the questions which were not pleaded and which were not the subject matter of any issue, thirdly by formulating questions of law which did not arise in the second appeal, and lastly, by interfering with the well reasoned judgment of […]