SRI N. UMAPTHY versus B.V. MUNIYAPPA

SRI N. UMAPTHY versus B.V. MUNIYAPPA

Respondent's continuous and lawful possession of the suit property entitles him to protection by ad-interim injunction despite the appellant's lease, and the appellant cannot be put in possession except by due process of law.

Parties
Appellant: N. Umapathy; Respondent: B.V. Muniyappa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Ad Interim Injunction, Lawful Possession, Mining Lease, Due Process of Law
Civil Procedure Ad Interim Injunction Lawful Possession Mining Lease Due Process of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. Umapathy

Appellant

B.V. Muniyappa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to ad-interim injunction pending suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, despite the appellant having a lease.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent's continuous and lawful possession of the suit property entitles him to protection by ad-interim injunction despite the appellant's lease, and the appellant cannot be put in possession except by due process of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Injunction granted by the High Court is maintained.
  • No costs.