The Supreme Court has held in the case of BALKRISHNA DATTATRAYA GALANDE VERSUS BALKRISHNA RAMBHAROSE GUPTA AND ANOTHER that “in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property. The burden of proof lies upon the first respondent-plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property on the date of suit”
In a civil suit between the plaintiff and the defendant, alleged to be a tenant-landlord relationship, the Supreme Court held that the burden is upon the person sought for permanent injunction to prove that he is in actual possession on the date of suit. It further held that “ in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, possession on the date of suit is a must for grant of permanent injunction. When the first respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property on the date of the suit, he is not entitled for the decree for permanent injunction”
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Trial court in dismissing the suit.
Read the Judgment
More Stories
The Court is not bound to follow statute or rules of evidence while deciding the custody of a Child and the only consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child- Supreme Court Reiterated
When the Agreement specifies particular type/mode of constitution of Arbitral Tribunal, the same should be followed in strict sense- Supreme Court clarified.
The Hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by the Doctors engaged or empanelled to provide medical care- Supreme Court Ruled