In this civil appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction, arguing perversity due to the threat of property alienation. The High Court held the suit was not maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed; no injunction was granted.
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.
RSA No.6074 of 2016 (O&M)
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.6074 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:17.05.2018
Parvinder Kaur
... Appellant
Vs.
Gurmaiul Kuar ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellant.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant not to sell the house, has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
Mr. Jai Bhagwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff submits that suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiffParvinder Kaur on the premise that she was married to Sarabjit Singh son of Davinder Singh. Since the defendant was owner of the property, there was a matrimonial discord and FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC had been registered. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Court has passed the order to protect the possession of the plaintiff and defendant was restrained from dispossessing or disturbing the possession of
Savita 2018.05.22 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.6074 of 2016 (O&M) {2}
plaintiff from the house in dispute till further orders. The defendant was contemplating to alienate the property in order to dispossess her but the Courts below did not advert to the aforementioned fact, thus, there is gross illegality and perversity in the findings under challenge.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Bhagwan. As per the provisions of Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act, suit as framed was not maintainable and rightly so, the Courts below declined to grant the injunction as sought.
As an upshot of my findings, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below which are based upon the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, much less no substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeal.
No other argument has been raised.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE May 17, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Savita 2018.05.22 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an injunction suit framed without the word 'whereof' is maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.
Whether the Courts below committed illegality and perversity in dismissing the suit despite the appellant's claim of threatened alienation of the property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parvinder Kaur
Gurmaiul Kuar
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
