Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar &

Ors. vs Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund &

Ors.
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 5794 of 2007
Decided on 11/12/2007

Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.38 — Suit for permanent injunction —
Directing defendants to demolish construction made on encroached land and
handover vacant possession — Suit allowed on basis of entries in revenue
records — Decree for permanent injunction in mandatory form passed without
deciding title of plaintiff — Is improper R S A No 135 of 2003, D/- 4-7-2005, (Kar
), Reversed

It is one thing to say that the Courts could pass an interlocutory order in the nature of
mandatory injunction in exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 151 of Civil P. C. on the
premise that a party against whom an order of injunction was passed, acted in breach
thereof; so as to relegate the parties to the same position as if the order of injunction
has not been violated, but, it is another thing to say that the Courts shall exercise the
same power while granting a decree of permanent injunction in mandatory form
without deciding the question of title and /or leaving the same open. The decree for
permanent mandatory injunction passed by relying upon revenue records and
without deciding title of plaintiff was liable to be set aside. (Para 13)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. B. SINHA :: H. S. BEDI ::

Citations :: 2008 AIR SCW 298 (From : Karnataka)* :: AIR 2008 SUPREME
COURT 901 (From : Karnataka)* :: 2008 (2) AIR Kar R 146 (SUPREME COURT)
(From : Karnataka)* ::
===============================================
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu reported
in (2004) 1 SCC 769. It has been laid down in that judgment that a
person who has been in long and settled possession, cannot be
dispossessed except due course of law even if injunction has been sought
against the true owner
==================================

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premji Ratansey Shah v. Union of India,

(1994) 5 SCC 547 and submits that as per case law no injunction can be
granted against true owner.
==========================

In Sawarni vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, Pattanaik, J., speaking for
the Bench has clearly held as follows: (SCC p. 227, para 7) "7. ...
Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or
extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title

revenue record does not create or extinguish title

H. Lakshmaiah Reddy & Ors vs L. Venkatesh Reddy on 17 April, 2015
AIR 2015 SC 2499

Privy Council in Palestine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Vs.

Government of Palestine, AIR 1948 PC 207 Supreme Court in Sheodhyan
Singh Vs. Sanichara Kuer, AIR 1963 SC 1879 and Smt. Ishwari Devi and
others Vs. Smt. Sarla Devi and others, JT 1995 (1) S.C. 175 and Arsad
Sheikh v. Bani Prosanna Kundu, (2014) 15 SCC 405, Rajasthan High
Court in Hazari Lal Vs. Nagar Parishad, AIR 1976 Raj. 91, this Court in
Jagdish Prasad vs. Mahendra Pratap, 1997 (3) All. L R. 41 and Patna
High Court in Ram Jiwan Rai Vs. Deoki Nandan Rai, AIR 2005 Pat. 23,
held that where there is a dispute between the area of the transferred
land indicated in the deed and the boundaries mentioned in the deed,
boundaries mentioned in the conveyance deed shall prevail
No injunction can be granted to implement the order of competent
authority as held Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Vs.
United Industrial Bank Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 1272. Supreme Court in
Pratibha Singh Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad, AIR 2003 SC 643 and Subhaga
Vs. Shobha, (2006) 5 SCC 466, upheld identification of property by
boundary by the Commissioner

Supreme Court in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu, AIR 2004 SC

4609, in which it has been held that a person in settled possession
cannot be dispossessed without recourse of law. Judgement of Madras
High Court in Second Appeal No. 732 of 1995 Mr. K. Subramanian Vs.
Ramabadra Reddiar (decided on 20.04.2007) and Division Bench of this
Court in M/S Maheshwari Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs.M/S Deep Live Stock Pvt.
Ltd. 2007 (3) ADJ 284 (DB) in which it has been held that if recitals in
documents shows that a lessor extent only was conveyed then it would
prevail over boundary. Judgement of Supreme Court in Subhaga Vs.
Shobha, JT 2006 (6) SC 178, in which it has been held that a property
can be identified either by boundary or by any other specification. Even if
there was any discrepancy, boundary should prevail.

Partition Deed executed behind his back –

Partition Deed not including necessary
parties, held, invalid, null and void
document – All Sale Deeds entered into
between parties pursuant to said Deed
also void
ab initio.
2013(2)CTC160
--------------------------------
the parties to the partition suit should not be allowed to raise any
permanent construction on any portion of the suit land until the suit
properties are partitioned by metes and bounds. The parties may
undertake repairing work in respect of the existing buildings and
structures with the prior permission of the Court.

in view of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 Balaram's

daughters became coparceners in respect of the said property. Therefore,
it is held, the petitioner has subsisting interest in the suit properties. As
such, the impugned partition deed dated 2.7.2011 between Balaram and
his two sons excluding the daughters of Balaram Sahoo prima facie
appears to be unsustainable
Orissa High Court
Pratima Sahoo vs Surendra Ku.Sahoo on 25 April, 2014

Karsanbhai Dahyabhai Parmar vs Dahiben

D/o. Dahyabhai Dabhaibhai & Ors.
Supreme Court of India [ Full Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 3262 of 2008
Decided on 02/08/2017

Hindu Law — Hindu Undivided Family — Gift deed in favour of daughter by

widow of owner before partition and before ascertaining her share in HUF —
Not valid — Gift deed liable to be rejected on death of widow for uncertain and
 undisclosed share — partition claim cannot be allowed on basis of gift deed.
Baroda Hindu Nibandh (1937), S. 197. (Para 5)

Hon'ble Judge(s): RANJAN GOGOI :: L. NAGESWARA RAO :: NAVIN SINHA ::

Citations :: AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3857 :: AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT
3857 :: AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3857 ::

Renu Devi vs Mahendra Singh and

others
Supreme Court of India [ Division Bench ]
Civil Appeal No. 4231 of 1999
Decided on 04/02/2003

Transfer Of Property Act (4 of 1882) S.122, S.43 -Gift - Validity - Preliminary

decree passed by Court partitioned the property by metes and bounds - Suit
property fell to the share of persons in one of the groups therein - Said persons
would be entitled in law to transfer by way of gift the property which had fallen
to their share to their daughter-in-law and grandsons - Donees would acquire a
valid legal title thereunder - Thus it cannot be said that unless and until the final
decree was passed, a gift of property could not have taken place - Even
otherwise on principle of feeding the grant by estoppel, subsequent acquisition
of title by donors under final decree, would enure to benefit of donee under gift
deed A F A D No 72 of 1995, D/- 23-6-1998 (Patna), Reversed Evidence Act (1 of
1872), S 115
AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 1608 (From : Patna)*

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O.22, R. 4(4) — Abatement of suit—

Death of defendant not contesting suit — Non-substitution of L Rs
— Suit would stand abated against deceased defendant alone — Only
if plaintiff files application before Court pronounces judgment and
that is allowed (Para 13)

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O.22, R. 3 — Abatement of

suit/appeal — Death of defendant/respondent — Non-substitution —
Suit/appeal abates as whole if deceased defendant does not have
independent and distinct right of his own — Suit for declaration of
co-ownership right in joint property — Death of one defendant —
Suit/appeal would abate as whole

2010 AIR SCW 5071 (From : Himachal Pradesh)