Back
Grants Injunction to Woman in 38-Year Possession Despite Sale Deed Cancellation
The , , has held that a person in is entitled to a even if the sale deed on which their title is based has been cancelled. Justice Prashant Kumar, while allowing an appeal by Rekha Saxena and her minor daughter, ruled that a decree cancelling a sale deed does not authorise eviction unless it contains a specific order for delivery of possession.
A Home Built on a Cancelled Deed
The case traces back to . A registered Power of Attorney was executed on in favour of Augustine Paul, authorising him to sell a plot in Raebareli. The POA was allegedly cancelled on , but the revocation was registered only on . In the interim, on , Augustine Paul executed a sale deed of the land in favour of Savitri Srivastava, the mother-in-law of appellant no.1. A house was subsequently constructed on the property.
In , the filed a suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed, arguing that the POA had already been revoked. The suit was later amended to include prayers for removal of construction and delivery of possession. However, when the suit was decreed on , the trial court only cancelled the sale deed and restrained further construction; it did not order eviction or delivery of possession.
The decree was formally drawn up only on — more than 22 years after the judgment. Relying on this decree, the respondents attempted to dispossess the appellants, who had been living in the house since . Facing imminent eviction, the appellants filed a fresh suit for permanent injunction in , along with an application for under .
The trial court rejected the application on , holding that the appellants had failed to establish ownership and that no existed since the sale deed had been cancelled. This order was challenged in the present appeal.
The Clash of Arguments
, appearing for the appellants, argued that the 2001 decree contained no direction for eviction, and that the appellants had been in continuous, peaceful possession for over 38 years. He submitted that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed was time-barred, and that the trial court had misapplied the judgments of the in and . He pointed out that the lines attributed to those judgments in the impugned order did not actually appear in the original rulings.
, , representing the respondents, relied on and the 's decision in to argue that the revocation of the POA related back to the date of execution, rendering the sale deed void from inception. He contended that the appellants had not filed any document to prove actual physical possession, and that a cancelled sale deed could not form the basis of a .
Possession Prevails Over Title at Interim Stage
Justice Prashant Kumar, after a detailed analysis of the law on temporary injunctions, observed that an is intended only to preserve the subject matter of the suit and not to determine substantive rights. Citing , , and , the court reiterated the three-fold test: , , and .
The court noted that the 2001 decree merely cancelled the sale deed and restrained further construction; it did not order eviction. Relying on , the court held that a person cannot be dispossessed without a decree or order of eviction. It also applied the principle from that even a rightful owner must take recourse to law to evict a trespasser in settled possession.
Critically, the court found that the appellants had made out a based on their , not on the strength of the cancelled sale deed. It pointed to paragraphs 37 and 38 of the respondents' own counter affidavit, which admitted the appellants' possession over the property. The court concluded:
"The
also lies in favour of the appellants. Their possession for more than three decades, appellant no.1 being a widow and appellant no.2 being a minor daughter and the property in dispute is their residential house, thus, if disturbed during the pendency of the suit, would cause them
and loss which cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money or subsequently cannot be restored if they win the suit."
Key Observations from the Judgment
Justice Kumar made several significant observations on the sanctity of possession:
"… this court has no embargo to hold that even where the person in long standing possession and is alleged to be a trespasser, the majesty of law cannot be supplanted by the impulse of force.
must be followed for his eviction; the rightful owner, however strong his title or just his claim, must seek the aid of law and cannot take the law into his own hands. Possession can only be disturbed only by due procedure sanctioned by law i.e., any direction or order for eviction or dispossession from competent court."
The court also clarified that at the stage of , a is not permissible. The trial court's reliance on Dalpat Kumar and Kashi Math Sansthan was found to be erroneous, as the principles laid down in those cases actually support the grant of injunction when a exists.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order dated , and granted a in favour of the appellants during the pendency of the suit. The court made it clear that its observations were confined to the prayer for and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the suit on merits. The respondents were directed not to forcibly dispossess the appellants and to pursue their remedies only through .
