Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
No relief can be granted against defendant no.2 since there was no prayer for relief against him in either the original or amended plaint; judgment of the High Court granting possession against defendant no.2 is unsustainable, and trial court's dismissal of the suit is restored.
Source excerpt
Respondent 1, having no privity of contract and no established claim over suit properties, is not entitled to continuation of interim injunction restraining dealings with suit properties; such an order cannot be maintained merely by virtue of its historical longevity. The appeals are allowed, and the interim order is vacated.
Source excerpt
Plaintiffs established clear title to the property and are entitled to possession; defendant did not prove title nor adverse possession for twelve years before suit; High Court erred in reversing trial court without proper consideration of evidence; trial court judgment restored.
Source excerpt
Compromise decree is not binding on heirs not party to the compromise; withdrawal of suit after decree at appellate stage requires notice to parties with interest; an application to set aside compromise decree, even if void, must comply with limitation laws; High Court under Article 227 cannot address disputed factual questions.
Source excerpt
Where the plaintiff has acquired lawful title by purchase from the rightful owner and is found to have been in prior possession, a defendant whose possession is merely permissive through the plaintiff’s vendor, and who failed to establish title or produce agreements, cannot claim a better title than the plaintiff. Both courts below correctly decreed possession to the plaintiff.
Source excerpt
In the absence of a specific finding as to the earliest Will dated 2.1.1956, and given its reference in pleadings and judgments, the matter is to be remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, allowing production of the original or certified copy of the Will and objections thereto, as per law.
Source excerpt
Plaintiff failed to prove acquisition of title, as his vendors themselves conceded lack of title and that patta was wrongly issued; therefore, the High Court erred in relying merely on patta. The lower Appellate Court's finding that the sale deed was obtained through fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation stands restored.
Source excerpt
The second appeal filed by the defendant was not maintainable as the First Appellate Court arrived at findings relevant only for determination between appellant and original plaintiff; no decree was passed against the appellant, and he did not prefer any appeal thereagainst.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in holding that the respondents/defendants had acquired title by adverse possession without proper proof. The essential requirements of adverse possession—hostile, open, continuous, and unequivocal denial of the true owner's title—were not established. The appellate court's findings in favor of the appellants' title were not properly upset by the High Court; thus, the appeals are allowed and the High Court's judgment is set aside.
Source excerpt
The doctrine of res judicata and constructive res judicata applies; the appellant's ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship were conclusively established in earlier proceedings and cannot be re-contested. The respondent is barred from denying appellant's title or raising claims that ought to have been raised in earlier suits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
