Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Decree of Mandatory and Perpetual Injunction in Property Dispute. Court Upholds Trial Court's Finding That Appellant/Defendant Wrongfully Locked Respondent/Plaintiff Out of Premises and Removed Fixtures.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 31
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The respondent/plaintiff, Wilfred Fernandes, proprietor of M/s. Jesuwil Travel and Tours, filed a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the appellant/defendant, Umesh Bondre. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the equipment and movables of a bar and restaurant from John Daniel, who had obtained possession of the suit premises from the defendant. The plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000 and took possession of the articles and keys. However, on 24/05/1996, the defendant wrongfully locked the premises and removed a water pump and overhead water tank. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the defendant to remove the locks and restore possession. The defendant appealed. The High Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, found no merit in the appeal. The court noted that the defendant had no right to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against decree - Mandatory and Perpetual Injunction - Suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction - The appellant/defendant challenged the decree passed by the trial court directing him to remove locks and restore possession of the suit premises to the respondent/plaintiff. The High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-4)

B) Property Law - Possession - Trespass - Wrongful Locking - The respondent/plaintiff claimed possession of the suit premises through an agreement with John Daniel, who had obtained possession from the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant locked the premises and removed fixtures. The court held that the appellant/defendant had no right to dispossess the respondent/plaintiff without due process. (Paras 3-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed with costs. The judgment and order of the trial court are confirmed.

Law Points

  • Mandatory injunction
  • perpetual injunction
  • possession
  • trespass
  • civil suit
  • appeal against decree
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 122

FIRST APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2002

2006-09-19

P.V. KAKADE, J

Shri Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Appellant; Shri D. Pangam, Advocate for the Respondent

Shri Umesh Bondre

Mr. Wilfred Fernandes

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought decree directing defendant to remove locks and restore possession of suit premises

Filing Reason

Defendant wrongfully locked the premises and removed fixtures, preventing plaintiff from entering

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit in favor of plaintiff; defendant appealed

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit Respondent supported the trial court's findings

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant had no right to dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law. The trial court's findings were based on evidence and no interference was warranted.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the Judgment and order passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa decreeing the respondent's plaintiff's suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the defendant. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

Procedural History

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction in the trial court. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellant/defendant appealed to the High Court.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Decree of Mandatory and Perpetual Injunction in Property Dispute. Court Upholds Trial Court's Finding That Appellant/Defendant Wrongfully Locked Respondent/Plaintiff Out of Premises and Removed Fixtures.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition of Physically Handicapped Allottee Against MUDA's Cancellation of Site Allotment. MUDA's Endorsement Cancelling Allotment for Non-Payment of Balance Amount Within Stipulated Time Set Aside as Arbitrary; Co...