An intruder in established possession has the appropriate to acquire everlasting disposition if possession of property is authorised and established: Supreme Courtroom
In the recent A. Subramanian v R. Pannerselvam case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction preventing the defendants from disrupting the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of said property.
The court accepted the plea and ordered the lawsuit. If the accused Appeal to the High Court however, the High Court upheld the judgment of the court.
In the Apex Court, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff could not have applied for a mere restraining order without asking for prayer for explanation.
The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff could not obtain the decree in his favor because the defendants had not proven their title and property.
The court examined the pleadings and found that the defendant had previously done so filed a lawsuit for recovery The defendant himself admitted that after the purchase, the plaintiff demolished the building after owning and registering the same property and being dismissed as if cross-examined.
The court also found that even an intruder in possession of the property could obtain an injunction, and the principle that the plaintiff cannot apply for a permanent injunction without asking for a prayer for explanation does not apply if the Plaintiff owning property is legal and established.
Therefore, the Supreme Court finds no wrong in the Supreme Court’s view and the injunction brought by the plaintiff is enacted.