<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (2) TMI 301 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171612</link>
    <description>Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted only in special circumstances and require a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience in favour of the applicant. In a dispute over a dwelling house of an undivided family under section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a stranger-purchaser of an undivided share has no right to joint possession or common enjoyment, and the co-owner&#039;s right to exclude intrusion is a valuable one. On the facts, the property remained undivided, the transfer was made with knowledge of the family&#039;s rights, and interim protection was needed to preserve status quo. Mandatory interim relief was therefore justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:33:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 301 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171612</link>
      <description>Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted only in special circumstances and require a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience in favour of the applicant. In a dispute over a dwelling house of an undivided family under section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a stranger-purchaser of an undivided share has no right to joint possession or common enjoyment, and the co-owner&#039;s right to exclude intrusion is a valuable one. On the facts, the property remained undivided, the transfer was made with knowledge of the family&#039;s rights, and interim protection was needed to preserve status quo. Mandatory interim relief was therefore justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>