Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 648
📌 Paras 1-3
The original plaintiff filed suits seeking mandatory injunctions for the removal of an illegally constructed wall and a lintel placed on the plaintiff's house wall by the defendants. The Trial Court decreed the suits, ordering removal of the encroachments. The first Appellate Court upheld these decrees. However, the High Court, in Second Appeals, modified the decrees by directing the defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiff, treating the encroaching structures as common, without the plaintiff seeking such relief.
📌 Para 5
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the decrees for mandatory injunction granted by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, by compelling the legal heirs of the plaintiff
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial