Supreme Court of India
SRI N. UMAPTHY versus B.V. MUNIYAPPA
- Decided
- 25 March 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 350 · 1997 INSC 318
- Also cited as
- AIR 1997 SC 2467
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.
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. We have heard counsel for both the parties.
p. 350, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises 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 :
p. 350, margin G
"Admittedly, in the case on hand, the plaintiff (respondent herein) having purchased the machinery plaint 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 plaintiffs vendor was in possession and enjoyment of suit 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
pp. 350–351, margin H
property."
p. 351, margin B
In view of the above undisputed factual position, the only question for consideration is : whether the respondent is entitle to ad-interim 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-inte1im injunction, pending the suit.
p. 351, margin B
It is also admitted case that the appellant has mining lease in respect of 1 acre 16 gunthas of land in the same survey number in which the respondent has by a lease deed dated November 29, 1993. The respondent cannot unlawfully be dispossessed from the lands nor his possession and enjoyment intradicted exeept in accordance with the due process of law.
p. 351, margin D
Under these circumstances, though the appellant had a lease, he cannot be given possession by the Government except after duly ejecting the respondent in 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.
p. 351, margin E
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.
p. 351, margin F
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 351, margin G