Permanent Injunction – Registered Sale Deed – Suit seeking cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanant injunction – Trial court partly allowed the suit by granting the relief of permanent injunction and refusing the relief of cancellation of the sale deed and declaration – First Appellate Court upheld the same – High Court dismissed the appeal holding that the relief of permanent injunction sought by the original plaintiff can be said to be substantive relief and not a consequential relief and therefore, the trial court was justified in granting the permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was/is found to be in possession of the suit property – Hence instant appeal – Held: The main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and declaration – The prayer of permanent injunction restraining defendant from disturbing her possession can be said to be a consequential relief – Once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation – An injunction is a consequential relief and in a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further relief – Whether the further relief claimed has, in a particular case as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted. Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law – Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not properly appreciated the distinction between a substantive relief and a consequential relief. The High Court has observed that in the instant case the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be a substantive relief, which is clearly an erroneous view. The main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and declaration and the prayer of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from disturbing her possession can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession. If that be so, in the present case, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief as observed and held by the High Court. Therefore, once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief – Relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the prayer for permanent injunction must fail. In the instant case as the plaintiff cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land, i.e., the possession of the plaintiff is “not legal or authorised by the law”, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any permanent injunction. [Para 11][469-B-F]
Dilboo vs. Dhanraji (2000) 7 SCC 702 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR 214; Jharkhand State Housing Board vs. Didar Singh and Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 692; A.
Subramanian vs. R. Pannerselvam (2021) 3 SCC 675 – relied on.
2. An injunction is a consequential relief and in a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further relief. Whether the further relief claimed has, in a particular case as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted. Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law. Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner. [Paras 11.1, 12.1][469-F-H; 471-F-G]
3. All the Courts below have erred in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1, who is the true owner. After having held that the plaintiff had no title and after dismissing the suit qua the cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1 – the true owner. [Para 13][471-G-H; 472-A]
Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370 : [2012] 3 SCR 841; Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. vs. Hotel Imperial (2006) 88 DRJ 545 – relied on.
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC
594 : [2008] 5 SCR 331 – 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.