In the case, the Petitioner prayed for relief for prohibiting the Respondents from conducting construction and causing illegal interference on the suit land. The suit was going on over a dispute for the partition and ownership of the said land. The case was dismissed as the parties already lost complete ownership of the land while the case was pending before the Court.
The Petitioner reached the Court and prayed for permanent prohibitory and a mandatory injunction against the Respondents. According to the Petitioner, the Respondents caused nuisance and on the suit land.
The Petitioner claimed that he has a share in the suit land and the Respondents were trying to conduct construction on the most valuable part of the suit land.
The suit caused over the land was dismissed by the Court. The Court held that the demonstration of the offended party of raising development over the contested land and denying development to the Respondents which was was in control of the Litigant could not be named to be a fair demonstration. Thus, he did not have any evidence to support his prayer for reliefs.
The Court further held that the parties were co-workers and any party cannot suddenly question the initial settlement as it has lived with neither any consent of others nor with a suit for partition.
The said decision was upheld by Appellate Court. Subsequently, not being satisfied with the Judgement, the Petitioner reached the Court.
While the present case was pending before the Court, a suit for partition of the suit land was decided. The Decision held that out of Respondent Number 1, 2, 3 and 4, the land was given to Respondent Number 3 and 4. Respondent No. 2 and 3 had no share in the land.
The Petitioner prayed for reliefs for restraining the Respondent from furthering the construction on the suit land claiming it to be illegal. The Respondent stated that the construction was not as illegal as the land was jointly owned. Further, there was no prior arrangement regarding the partition and ownership of any part of the land.
The Court observed that the ownership of the land was settled as Respondents 1 and 2 had no share in the land and thus were not owners. Therefore, any matter raised regarding the suit land and prayers made by the Petitioner for reliefs is no longer valid.
Based on the aforementioned facts, the case is no longer valid and is infructuous. Therefore, the case was dismissed as the Respondents did not have any title over the said land at all.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.