In Brief
A property dispute concerned two adjoining sites where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction against interference with his possession. The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting injunction for one site (No. 53) based on a registered sale deed, but dismissed the claim for the other site (No. 47) because only a power of attorney existed instead of a sale deed due to a government ban on registering revenue sites. The High Court reversed, holding the plaintiff had proven lawful possession of both sites through evidence of an agreement, the power of attorney, and credible witness testimony. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that permanent injunction suits are decided on 'lawful possession', not title, and affirmed the High Court's factual findings."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.