Suit – For permanent injunction – Plaintiff-respondent filed suit for permanent injunction interdicting the defendants-appellants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit property –Plaintiff ’s case was that he had purchased property from descendants of one ‘D’ and supported his claim with power of attorney executed by legal heirs of ‘D’, sale deed dated 16.07.2001, sale deed dated 14.03.1946 in favour of ‘D’ and house tax receipt dated 27.02.2001 –Defendant refuted the claim of plaintiff – The trial Court held that the plaintiff has right over the property, the possession of plaintiff was also found to be proved – However, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish title over the property –The High Court found that earlier appellant-defendant had filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same suit property and it was dismissed by the trial Court and appeal was also dismissed – So, the finality was achieved to the previous proceedings that defendant had neither title nor was in possession of suit property – The High Court after considering the same affirmed the decision of the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff – On appeal, held: In the instant case, the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction – The High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property – Therefore, the defendant cannot make a plea to be in possession and also, when defendant had admitted that plaintiff was in possession – The trial Court as well as the High Court has looked into not only the oral evidence but the exhibits which were filed on behalf of the defendant– Thus, there is no error in the judgment of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case the possession of the plaintiff was upheld by the High Court on two main reasons. Firstly, the defendant of the suit, had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property against the manager of the property which suit was dismissed and recovery of possession having been rejected, defendant cannot even make a plea to be in possession and secondly defendant in his crossexamination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction. [Para 20][889-A-B]
2. The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction. However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief. The High Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute obviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1 failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts of the present case. [Para 21][889-G-H; 890-A] 3.In the present case the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction. As noted, the High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant No.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property. The submission of the appellants that evidence filed by the defendant were not looked into is not correct. The trial court as well as the High Court has looked into not only the oral evidence but the exhibits which were filed on behalf of the defendant which is clear from the discussion made by the High Court. [Para 25][891-F-H; 892-A]
4. This Court does not find any error in the view of the High Court that it was not necessary to enter into the validity of Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff. This Court,thus, does not find any error in the judgment of the High Court allowing the second appeal filed by the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring that of trial court. [Para 26][892-B]
Nagar Palika, Jind vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3 SCC 426 : [1995] 3 SCR 9; Yamuna Nagar
Improvement Trust vs. Khariati Lal (2005) 10 SCC 30; Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) Through Legal
Representatives and another vs. Shivnath and others (2019) 6 SCC 82 : [2019] 6 SCR 518; Ajendra
Prasadji Narendra Prasadji Pandey vs. Swami K.
Narayandasji and others (2005) 10 SCC 11 : [2005]
1 Suppl. SCR 392 ; Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander and others AIR 1968 SC 1165 : [1968] SCR
163 – referred to.
Parry v. Clissold (1907) AC 73 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.