Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1987MP102
..... the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that because of the attempt of the defendant to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land and continuance of the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land under the protection of the order of the civil court was not a peaceful possession and the possession being not peaceful there is a break in the continuity of the peaceful possession. ..... the defendant did not challenge that judgment and decree and thereafter took no steps by filing a suit or any other proceeding for dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land knowing fully well that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land against the interest of the defendant on the basis of the document of agreement to sell. ..... thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant pertaining to the suit land, whereupon the civil court passed a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and his son in civil suit no. ..... any stray act of an attempt to dispossess the person holding the land adversely cannot be held as an interruption of the possession. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1999MP271
..... all the three decisions aforesaid lay down the law to the effect that the parties to an agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a court who is not possessed by it under the code of civil procedure, but in case, there be an agreement between the parties to a contract that out of the two courts having concurrent jurisdiction to try the suit, one of such courts, shall try the suit, it is not opposed to public policy, within the meaning of section 23 of the contract act; and it does not contravene section 28 of the contract act. ..... it is, however, made clear that any of the observations made for the purpose of grant of ex parte injunction by this court, shall not be binding upon the court-below or the arbitrators and the court-below is free to decide the application under section 9 of the act after hearing the respondents, in case, they place fresh material before it and insist upon the decision of the application under section 9 of the act after receiving the notice thereof. ..... the learned trial judge, by the impugned order rejected the contention of the appellant to the effect that it was entitled to an ex parte temporary injunction in absence of the respondents, firstly, on the ground that the appellant was bound to deposit monthly rent as per correspondence between the parties without any consideration of the fact that the respondents were not sending signals for telecasting the programmes. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(3)MPHT239
..... for the purposes of establishing continuous adverse possession over the suit land for 12 years the appellant did not lead any evidence that on what date and year he had taken the possession. ..... both the courts below have held that only on the basis of entry of possession in the land record for 4 years, that too was not in continuation, it could not be said that the appellant was in continuous possession over the suit land more than 12 years ..... p-12 to p-14 which are showing his possession over the suit land in the years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1969-70 and then 1977 to 78 for 4 years. ..... as a matter of fact, demolishes the case of the appellant about his possession over the suit land for more than 2 years. ..... questions were put in cross-examination for possession over the suit land for which he had given evasive reply. ..... the oral evidence adduced by the appellant is also not establishing his continuous possession for more than 12 years, over the suit ..... of some mere stray entries in favour of the appellant it cannot be said that he was in continuous possession for more than 12 years over the suit land. ..... the civil suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff on 29-10-1977 for declaration of his title over the suit land and permanent injunction in his favour against respondents/defendants ..... first of all, both the courts below have not found on the material available on record that there was any oral sale secondly as per provisions of section 54 of transfer of property act, the property valuing more than rs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(1)MPHT111
..... 1) applied for his re-entry under section 23-g of the act and on 20-8-2001 obtained a temporary injunction from rca against alienation and transfer of possession of the suit house to any one ..... under section 23-g (4) of the act the landlord should have occupied the accommodation within two months of obtaining such possession and he can not re-let or transfer possession of the accommodation within two years without permission of the rca who could grant such permission for bonafide reasons. ..... on the other hand, late prashant kumar chourasia in his written reply had claimed that he had got cleaned and repaired the suit house within four days of getting vacant possession thereof and had started living therein, with his ..... claimed that late prashant kumar chourasia had not occupied the house for his own or family's residence even for a day after getting its vacant possession and had kept the same locked. ..... in these facts certainly the landlord prashant kumar chourasia had a valid excuse for not coming to indore and occupy the suit house and he could be said to be entitled to change his intention ..... rules, 1962 has been as follows :-' (4) application for re-entry:- an application by a tenant under sub-section (2) of section 17 or under sub-section (3) of section 18 for putting him in possession of the accommodation or part thereof shall be made within six months from the date on which the cause of action for re-entry arises and shall stale the grounds on which such possession is claimed.'9. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)MPHT105
..... the case was pursued upto 16-12-2002, but on realisation that suit for declaration of title and injunction simpliciter was not maintainable in respect of the breach of the contract requiring specific performance, an application under order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure, was filed on 16-12-2002. ..... it was in this context that a suit was filed on 11-2-1991 for declaration of title and injunction before the civil judge, class ii, indore. ..... under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the trial court did not commit any illegality in not allowing the application of the appellant, under section 14 of the limitation act, and treating the suit as barred by limitation.8. ..... having allowed the period of seven years elapsed from the date of filing of the suit, and the period of limitation being three years under article 54 of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963, any amendment on the ground set out, would defeat the valuable right of limitation accrued to the respondent.6. ..... accordingly, the plaint was returned and it was presented to the court haying jurisdiction on 25-6-2003 along with an application under section 14 of the limitation act, seeking exclusion of the period from 11-2-1991 to 23-6-2003. ..... 6-a/2003, by which the application of the appellant under section 14 of the limitation act, has been dismissed.2. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(1)MPLJ638
..... 2005 air scw 4789, it was held that when there was averment in the plaint that plaintiff was ready to get the sale deed executed after paying necessary consideration, order decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract in favour of plaintiff was found to be proper.12. ..... she had published the notices in daily newspapers, thereafter, served a notice through counsel also for execution of the sale deed, as pleaded in the plaint she was present in the office of sub registrar (registration), thus pleading with respect to readiness and willingness to perform her part of agreement has been made as per requirement of section 16(c) of specific relief act, 1963. ..... r.jagan mohan rao : air1996sc116 the apex court has observed that to adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. ..... husband of plaintiff died, as such she had waited for sometime, however, it is clear from the entire statement of plaintiff that kalimurrahman wanted to resile from the agreement and to realize the higher amount and in disregard to the injunction granted by the court, he sold the property. ..... it was directed that possession of the plaintiff not to be interfered with otherwise then in due course of law. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2010(1)MPHT356
..... short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction with allegations that the land comprised in survey no. ..... shrivastava, learned counsel for appellant that the suit of plaintiff is maintainable and the courts below have committed illegality in dismissing it as untenable. ..... 5, 6 and 10, dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 3-11-01, holding that the suit of plaintiff was not maintainable. ..... thus, said order is binding on the plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ..... 904 was mentioned, is ineffective and non-binding on the plaintiff and that no interference may be made into the possession of the plaintiff over the land which he holds as survey no. ..... from undisputed pleadings on record, it is clear that the plaintiff asserted its ownership and possession in respect of survey nos. ..... this apart, it was specifically stated in the written statement that map having been changed under the order of revenue officer, civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.4. ..... accordingly, collector, guna is not found to have acted beyond jurisdiction in directing for rectification of the mistake by making corrections vide his order. ..... thereafter, the present appeal is preferred, which has been admitted and heard on the following substantial question of law:whether the courts below have acted illegally in holding that the suit was not tenable in view of section 257(f) m.p. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)MPHT445; 2000(1)MPLJ289
..... person will appear and answer any charge which may be preferred against him, arrest him without warrant ..... other things in his possession;(c) seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or part or derivative thereof, in respect of which an offence against this act appears to have been committed, in the possession of any person together with any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon used for committing any such offence, and unless he is satisfied that such ..... such person to produce for inspection any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant or part or derivative thereof in his control, custody or possession or any licence, permit or other document granted to him or required to be kept by him under the provisions of this act;(b) stop any vehicle or vessel in order to conduct search or inquiry or enter upon and search any premises, land, vehicle or vessel, in the occupation of such person, and open and search any baggage or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(1)MPHT146; 2001(2)MPLJ138
..... once it is accepted that the plaintiff was in possession, of the property, ever since 1947, then his possession has to be protected as against the interference by someone, who is not proved to have better title than himself to the suit property. ..... land falling under it's management, is competent body to evict unlawful or unauthorised possession on the suit property, then the question of appellants' having better title than that of the respondent, does not arise. ..... 44-a/86, in the court of iiird civil judge, class ii, bhind for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that he is in adverse possession of the disputed land and also on the strength of a lease deed, granted by erstwhile gram panchayat of village in his favour. ..... this second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:(i) whether, the plaintiffs who are in possession of the suit property can on their strength of possession, resist interference from the defendant who has no better title than the plaintiff ?3. ..... municipal corporation act, makes it clear that the properly which vested in the municipality is now vested in municipal corporation and the property is to be utilized and used for the purpose mentioned in m.p. ..... , reported in 1980 jlj 581, wherein, it has been laid down that the change in law, since in the gwalior municipal act of samvat 1969 upto the enactment of the m.p. ..... those properties continued to vest in the municipal committee under the gwalior act. ..... corporation act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP258
..... in that case the plaintiff filed suit for possession of an area measuring 24' x 11' and mandatory injunction for directing removal of construction consisting of two rooms. ..... the plaintiffs filed suit for mandatory injunction praying therein that the portion shown as a, b, c, d in the plaint map which is in the red lines, have been illegally encroached by the defendants and by dismantling the wall had raised construction on the space on which plaintiffs' wall was erected. ..... looking to the width and the length of the encroached area which has been encroached by the defendants, i am of the view that instead of restoring the decree of mandatory injunction under section 39 of specific relief act, 1963 (in short 'the act of 1963'), passed by learned trial court in order to serve the justice, it would be appropriate to award damages under section 40 of the act of 1963 to the plaintiffs in lieu of the decree of mandatory injunction to dismantle the encroached area. ..... looking to the entire gamut as well as by taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, i am also of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled for the damages under section 40 of the act of 1963. ..... because, if the decree under section 39 of the act is allowed to be executed, it would cause havoc and great loss to the defendants as their entire house would be damaged. .....
Tag this Judgment!