Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Metro Marins VS Bonus Watch Co. Private LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes VS Erasmo Jack de Sequeria...
2012 2 Supreme 602 : Yes, a suit for mandatory injunction can be filed against a caretaker who has illegally dispossessed the owner. The caretaker holds the property only on behalf of the principal (true owner) and cannot claim any interest in the property, even after long possession. The caretaker must surrender possession forthwith upon demand by the true owner. A suit for injunction by the caretaker against the true owner is not maintainable, as a possessory suit is not valid against the rightful owner. Therefore, the owner may legally seek a mandatory injunction to recover possession from the caretaker who wrongfully retains the property.Checking relevance for Samarpan Varishtha Jan Parisar VS Rajendra Prasad Agarwal...
Checking relevance for East India Hotels LTD. VS Syndicate Bank...
1991 0 Supreme(SC) 472 : Yes, a suit for mandatory injunction can be filed against a caretaker who illegally dispossesses the owner. The legal principle established in the documents is that no person, including a rightful owner, can dispossess another in settled possession without following due course of law. A caretaker who unlawfully dispossesses the owner—especially if the owner was in settled possession—can be restrained by a mandatory injunction. The courts have consistently held that even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to protection under law and cannot be ejected by self-help. The object of Section 6 of the Act (and similar provisions) is to discourage self-help and ensure that dispossession occurs only through legal process. Therefore, if a caretaker dispossesses the owner without legal authority, the owner may file a suit for mandatory injunction to restore possession, as the law protects settled possession regardless of title. This is reinforced by cases like Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh and M.C. Batra v. Laxmi Insurance Co. Ltd., which affirm that a person in possession cannot be dispossessed without due process, and that the law discourages self-help by landlords or caretakers.Checking relevance for Premji Ratansey Shah VS Union Of India...
Checking relevance for Satish Chander Ahuja VS Sneha Ahuja...
2020 6 Supreme 613 : A suit for mandatory and permanent injunction/eviction or possession by the owner of the property is maintainable before a Competent Court. In appropriate cases, the competent court can decide the claim in a properly instituted suit by the owner as to whether the woman (or any person, including a caretaker) needs to be excluded or evicted from the shared household. This applies even if the shared household is tenanted, allotted, or licensed in the name of the husband, father-in-law, or any other relative, provided the proceedings are not collusive. The embargo under Section 17(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 operates only against the ''''respondent'''' as defined under Section 2(q), meaning it does not prevent the owner from filing a suit for injunction against a caretaker who has illegally dispossessed them.Checking relevance for Dushyant Chikara VS Zeeshan Ali...
2024 0 Supreme(Del) 895 : Yes, a suit for mandatory injunction can be filed against a caretaker who has illegally dispossessed the owner. The court has held that a caretaker, watchman, or servant cannot acquire any interest in the property, regardless of long possession, and must vacate the premises on demand. The court emphasized that the protection of the court can only be granted to persons with valid rent, lease, or licence agreements, and not to caretakers or agents who hold property on behalf of the principal. In such cases, the court may direct the caretaker to return possession to the true owner, even if the caretaker initiated the litigation. This is consistent with the principle that due process of law is satisfied when the court adjudicates upon the rights of the parties, regardless of who initiated the suit. Therefore, the true owner may file a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession from an illegally dispossessing caretaker.Checking relevance for Anil Nair VS Anjana Viren Shah...
2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 22 : Yes, a suit for mandatory injunction can be filed against a caretaker who is in illegal possession of the premises. The Supreme Court has held that a caretaker, watchman, or servant can never acquire any right or interest in the property, regardless of long possession, and must give possession forthwith on demand. The caretaker holds the property only on behalf of the principal and has no independent interest. Therefore, if a caretaker is in illegal occupation after termination of service, the civil court has jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction for possession, as seen in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) Through LRs., [(2012)5 SCC 370].
