Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. RAJNIBAI @ MANNUBAI versus SMT. KAMLA DEVI AND ORS.

Decided
12 January 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 478 · 1996 INSC 65
Also cited as
  • (1996) 2 SCC 225 (3 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1996 SC 1946 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 478, margin E

We have heard the counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench dated January 20, 1993 made in M.A. No. 33719 l.

p. 478, margin F

The appellant laid the suit for declaration of prescriptive title to the property from 1974 in his own right and perfected the title thereto by adverse possession. He also filed an application under Order 39 Rule I and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interdicting his possession pending the suit. The trial Court granted the injunction but on appeal it was reversed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. The High Court has concluded that when there is no dispute as regards the incoporeal right in litigation, the declaratory suit is only a right to the property but nol to the right itself; Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC could be availed of only when the property, the subject matter thereof, is in danger of being wasted, damaged or otherwise being dealt with. In a simple suit for declaratory nature without any consequential relief there cannot be any dispute as regards the property because the dispute is not about the property but to the entitlement of the right sought in respect of the properly which itself is directly involved in the suit but not in an interlocutory order. Consequently it was held that the grant of interim injunction is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court under Onjer 39 Rule I and 2. We are of the view that the view expressed by the High Court is not correct in law. In a suit for declaration of title simpliciter, the Court has power under Order 39, Rules I and 2 or even in Section 151 to grant ad interim injunction pending suit.

pp. 478–479, margin F

Admittedly, the appellant is in possession of the property. In view of his apprehension that there is a threat to his possession, his only remedy would be whether he will be entitled lo the declaration sought for. When he seeks 1to protect his possession, if he is otherwise entitled according to law, necessarily t\le Court has to consider whether protection is to be given to him pending the suit. Merely because there is not dispute as regards the corporeal right to the property, it does not necessarily follow that he is not entitled to avail the remedy under Order 39, Rules I and 2 CPC. Even otherwise also, it is settled law that under Section 151 CPC, the Court has got inherent power to protect the rights of the parties pending the suit. Under these circumstances, the view expressed by the High Court that application itself is not maintainable is clearly illegal .and erroneous. The application under Order 39, Rules I and 2 is maintainable.

p. 479, margin C

The matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the case on merits and dispose it of according to law, since the High Court did not consider the case on merits.

p. 479, margin E

Status quo would continue till the disposal of the appeal in the High Court.

p. 479, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.

p. 479, margin G