Sr. N. N, Umapathy vs B.V. Muniyappa
- SCC(1997) 9 SCC 247
- Neutral1997 INSC 318
- AIRAIR 1997 SC 2467
- SCR[1997] 3 SCR 350
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A person in lawful actual possession of land cannot be unlawfully dispossessed or have that possession interfered with except in accordance with due process of law, even where another party holds a lease from the Government in respect of the same land. An ad-interim injunction to protect lawful possession pending suit is appropriate where the plaintiff has been in continuous actual possession of land and machinery thereon, the defendant's superior title (if any) does not authorize dispossession outside legal process, and the Government as true owner has acknowledged the plaintiff's possession and agreed to ratify it subject to conditions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
We have heard counsel for both the parties. This appeal by special leave arise from the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, made on 28.8.1996 in C.R.P. No. 2780/95. The admitted position is that the predecessor of the respondent had a mining lease in S. NO. 14 of Venkatapura Village. The High Court has noted as under :
"Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff (respondent herein) having purchased the machinery plant installed over the said extent of the suit land from his vendor, had been in continuous actual possession thereof since November, 1989. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff's vendor was in possession and enjoyment of property from 1984 till November, 1989 on which date he delivered possession to the plaintiff under the said agreement. Admittedly, the Government is the true owner of the suit property."
In view the above undisputed factual position, the only question for consideration is injunction pending suit under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, though the trial Court had not granted the injunction and the appellate Court reversed it? The High Court on the above facts maintained ad-interim injunction, pending the suit.
It is also admitted case that the appellant has mining lease in respect of 1 acre 16 gunthas of land in he same survey number in which the respondent has bey a lease deed dated November 29, 1993. The respondent cannot unlawfully be dispossessed from the lands nor his possession and enjoyment intradicted except in accordance with the due process of law.
Under these circumstances, though the appellant has s lease, he cannot be given possession by the Government except after duly ejecting the respondent a accordance with law. It would appear that subsequently on a representation made by the respondent, the Government acknowledged the factum of his possession and agreed to ratify his continuance in possession subject to his paying Rs. 12 lacs and odd per acre and further amount as contemplated by the Government order.
Under these circumstances, the injunction granted by the High Court is in accordance with law and the respondent is entitled to the protection of his lawful possession by way of ad-interim injunction.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free