Hameed v. Fateh Jang and 22 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Held this second appeal listing it for hearing while staying the impugned judgment and decree from the Delhi judge until further orders. The court considered issues regarding property identity and the requirement of a licence for granting an injunction.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 443 of 2024
Appellant :- Hameed Respondent :- Fateh Jang And 22 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Respondent :- Vishal Agarwal
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
- Heard Shri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the defendantappellant along with Shri Mohammad Khalid and Shri Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel for plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 to 7.
- This is defendant's appeal arising out of non-concurrent judgments passed in a suit for mandatory injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit, however, the decree has been revered by the first Appellate Court.
- The submission of Shri Khan is that the suit was filed in respect of the property covered by Gata No. 270/1 on the plea that the defendant-appellant was given licence to stay over the said property by the plaintiff and though he paid licence fees for certain years, but thereafter stopped paying the same and, consequently, the licence was terminated and the suit was filed.
- The defence was that one Yameen was the owner of Gata No. 270 which, during consolidation operation, was given two numbers, i.e. 270/1 and 270/2. Whereas Gata No. 270/1 was sold to Shyam Gulati who, later, sold to Shamshad and others and these vendees, ultimately, sold the property to the plaintiffs on 08.03.1996, insofar as Gata No. 270/2 is concerned, it was sold to number of persons, who permitted the appellant to stay there and also executed a Will in favour of the appellant. It is, therefore,
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in finding the property identity without a survey report or spot inspection.
Whether the suit could be decreed on the grounds that the appellant's name is not in the Khatauni of Khasra No. 270/2 without considering defence witness statements.
Whether a suit for mandatory injunction can be decreed without proof of a grant of licence by plaintiffs to the defendant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Hameed
- respondent
Fateh Jang and others
Coram
Kshitij Shailendra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- SAPL/443/2024
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court