Even a Trespasser in Established Possession Can Obtain Injunction: Supreme Court

Judiciary Feb 20, 2021 Gautami Chakravarty ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 2 Shares

The Supreme Court while upholding the Madras High Court Judgment observed that a trespasser who is in established possession of the property can obtain injunction.

Also Read - Question on Extension of Uploading EWS Certificates Deadline for Civil Services Examination: Supreme Court issues Notice on UPSC’s Plea

The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed that the plaintiff cannot find for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration will not apply when the plaintiff's possession over the property is 'admitted and established'.

"We do not find any error in the view of the High Court and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff", the court observed while dismissing the appeal.

Also Read - Supreme Court sets Tata Motors Ltd. free of liability, says Manufacturer liable only if they had prior knowledge

The Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking injunction simplicitor. He sought a permanent injunction interdicting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed merely on the fact that the defendants failed to prove their title and possession, it was contended.

Examining the pleadings, the bench observed that the defendant of the suit, Subramanian had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property and the same was dismissed and that in his cross-examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction.

The main issue raised by the defendant before the Supreme Court was that the plaintiff could not have sought for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration.

The Madras High Court was of the view that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute obviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1 failed to obtain any relief. He sought a permanent injunction interdicting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property.

Question on Extension of Uploading EWS Certificates Deadline for Civil Services Examination: Supreme Court issues Notice on UPSC’s Plea

Judiciary Feb 26, 2021 Tanya Sehrawat ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 0 Shares

Various Special Leave Petitions had been filed pleading for extension of the deadline for uploading the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) Certificates in order to avail reservations under the said category. A notice on the same was issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Thursday (February 18, 2021) responding to the question. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Rohinton F. Nariman, BR Gavai and Hemant Gupta. The bench went on to issue a notice on the SLPs along with the...

Read full post

Supreme Court sets Tata Motors Ltd. free of liability, says Manufacturer liable only if they had prior knowledge

Judiciary Feb 23, 2021 Namya Bose ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 13 Shares

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court recently observed that the manufacturer cannot be held guilty unless it is proved that the manufacturer was in fact aware of the wrongful doings of the dealer in a scenario when the relationship is that of a “principle to principle” basis. The dealer here refers to ‘Vistar Goa’, who sold a 2009 model car of Tata Motors, saying it was a 2011 model, thus representing false information. On filing of complaint, Tata Motors Ltd. was added...

Read full post