9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the Plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, Plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction - In the facts of the case the Defendant-Board by relying upon the land acquisition proceedings and the possession certificate could successfully raise cloud over the title of the Plaintiff and in those circumstances Plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration. The Courts below erred in entertaining the suit for injunction. The judgment and decree impugned in the appeal deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Civil Appeal No. 8241 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 9-10-2018 - N.V. RAMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The Defendant has filed the written statement contending that the Plaintiff vendor has no legal right and title over the suit Schedule property and the sale deed executed by his vendor will not confer any right or title to the Plaintiff. Further the suit Schedule property along with other properties was acquired by the Defendants by way of land acquisition proceedings in the year 1965 and the possession was handed over to them. As such, except the Defendant, no one else has right or title over the property. The Defendant has taken several other grounds with regard to maintainability of the suit on the ground of misjoinder of proper and necessary parties to the suit, on the ground of limitation, Under Section 92 of the B.S.H.B. Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot successfully proved by the Defendant by adducing cogent evidence. The Defendant further carried the matter to the High Court by way of second appeal and that also ended up in dismissal. The High Court also observed that as the Plaintiff is in possession of the property, he can protect his possession against any interference and it is not necessary to prove his title to the property. 6. The unsuccessful Defendant is before us by way of this appeal. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-Board has argued that the disputed property was part of the Government land acquired through land acquisition proceedings and the possession of the same lies with the Appellant-Board. The claim of the Respondents-Plaintiffs over the suit land was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settled by catena of Judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the Defendant disputes the title of the Plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases Plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the Defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the Plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, Plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction. 12. In the facts of the case the Defendant-Board by relying upon the land acquisition proceedings and the possession certificate could successfully raise cloud over the title of the Plaintiff and in those circumstances Plaintiff ought to have sought for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
