ZARIF AHMAD (D} THROUGH LRS. & ANOTHER versus MOHD. FAROOQ

ZARIF AHMAD (D} THROUGH LRS. & ANOTHER versus MOHD. FAROOQ

The suit property was sufficiently described in the plaint with its boundaries, municipal number, and shown in the plaint map, making it identifiable. For a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, such description is sufficient and the decree is executable. The first appellate court erred in holding that the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Zarif Ahmad (Deceased) Through LRs. & Another; Respondent: Mohd. Farooq
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of India Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment Restoring Trial Court's Decree
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Remand of Cases, Description of Immovable Property in Suits, Permanent Injunction, Identifiability of Property, Execution of Decree
Civil Procedure Remand of Cases Description of Immovable Property in Suits Permanent Injunction Identifiability of Property Execution of Decree

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zarif Ahmad (Deceased) Through LRs. & Another

Appellant

Mohd. Farooq

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of India Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment Restoring Trial Court's Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit plot was identifiable for the purpose of execution of decree for permanent injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the first appellate court was correct in remanding the case or dismissing the suit on grounds of non-identifiability of the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The suit property was sufficiently described in the plaint with its boundaries, municipal number, and shown in the plaint map, making it identifiable. For a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, such description is sufficient and the decree is executable. The first appellate court erred in holding that the property was not identifiable and in remitting the matter. As the pleadings and evidence were adequate, there was no necessity for remand or for additional evidence. The High Court properly restored the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Second Appeal allowed by High Court and the decree of the trial court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is restored.
  • No order as to costs.