https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272727 Letters Patent Appeal was held maintainable because Section 100 CPC did not govern the Single Judge's judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A suit for injunction was sustained on the basis of exclusive, continuous and settled possession, even though title was not proved, because possessory protection and due process requirements prevent dispossession by self-help. Additional evidence on title was held inadmissible where no plea or issue on title existed, and the remand could not be expanded to decide title. The Division Bench decree based on possession was therefore restored and the appeal failed. en-us Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 May 2018 12:50:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272727 Letters Patent Appeal was held maintainable because Section 100 CPC did not govern the Single Judge's judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. A suit for injunction was sustained on the basis of exclusive, continuous and settled possession, even though title was not proved, because possessory protection and due process requirements prevent dispossession by self-help. Additional evidence on title was held inadmissible where no plea or issue on title existed, and the remand could not be expanded to decide title. The Division Bench decree based on possession was therefore restored and the appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272727