1. Partition suit — Compromise decree — Possession delivered by revenue authority — Dispute over issuance of injunction against the possessor. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1626
1996(8) Supreme 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Sri Hanumanthappa -Appellant
versus
Sri Muninarayanappa -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13232 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8989 of 1996)
Decided on 7-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : G.V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate for P.P. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : E.C. Vidayasagar, Advocate.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
No injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property.
No injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property.
Subject
Property Law - Partition and Possession
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 39 Rules 1 & 2-Appellant was given 39 guntas of land towards his share in compromise in a partition suit-He was put in possession of land and decree was passed-Pending that partition suit respondent had purchased the land under registered sale deed belonging to its vendor in 1986-Respondent was not a party to compromise decree passed in 1990-There could not be an injunction issued against appellant who was lawful owner and had been put in possession of land before injunction was issued. (Para 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether an injunction can be issued against a party in lawful possession of property crystallized through a compromise decree. (Para 4 )
3. Appellant was in lawful possession as owner before the interim injunction was granted; the High Court erred in its factual finding regarding the timing of possession. (Para 4 )
4. No injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Orders of lower courts set aside — Respondent granted liberty to proceed against vendor. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Can an injunction be issued against the lawful owner of a property?
No, it is a settled legal position that no injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property. (Para 4 )
7. Does the timing of possession relative to an interim injunction affect the legality of that possession?
Yes; if a party is put in lawful possession by a competent authority before an interim injunction is granted, the possession is lawful and not a violation of the injunction. (Para 4 )
8. What is the remedy for a purchaser who buys property pending a partition suit if a compromise decree later grants that property to another party?
The purchaser may proceed against their vendor in accordance with the law. (Para 6 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. No doubt this appeal arises from an interlocutory application, since it has an effect on the judicial proceedings that have become final; we think that at this stage, it would be appropriate to interfere with this matter and correct it.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order and judgment of the High Court of Karnataka made on 20.10.1995 in C.R.P. No. 420/95. Admittedly, the appellant had instituted the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property in 1966 in Suit No. 88/66 which was dismissed on February 20, 1988. On appeal, after the remand by the High Court, Appeal No. 98/88 culminated in compromise. A compromise decree was passed on February 29, 1990 (sic.). Thereunder the appellant was given from the total extent of 3 acres, 39 guntas of land, towards his share and decree in that behalf was passed. Under the Panchnama drawn by the Tehsildar on July 22, 1993, the appellant was put in possession of 39 guntas of land as per the certified copies of the Panchnama filed in the trial Court as Item No. 17 of the documents filed in the present suit. The district Court also in the present proceedings recorded a finding in paragraph 14 of its order that the appellant was put in possession of 39 guntas of land.
4. The question, therefore, arises: whether an injunction can be issued against the appellant? It is not in dispute that pending that partition suit No. 88/66, the respondent had purchased the land belonging to his vendors including 39 guntas of land under registered sale deed dated February 24, 1986. Undoubtedly, the respondent was not a party to the compromise decree dated February 29, 1990. Since he purchased the property pending the suit for partition, a compromise decree having been executed by the parties in which the right of the appellant to the extent of 39 guntas was crystallized and he was duly put in possession, necessarily, he was in lawful possession of the property as an owner. The question is: whether an injunction can be issued against the lawful owner? It is settled legal position that no injunction can be issued against a lawful owner of the property. The High Court proceeded on the premise that the appellant was put in possession of the property after the interim injunction was granted by the trial Court. It is factually incorrect since the injunction was granted by the trial Court only on January 5, 1994 by which date he had already been put in possession by the Tehsildar under the Panchnama dated July 22, 1993. Under these circumstances, the High Court also was in error in coming to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be in lawful possession since he had come in possession after the injunction was issued under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the courts below stand set aside. But in the circumstances without costs.
6. It is made clear that since the respondent has purchased the property pending the suit, it would be open to him to proceed against his vendor in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed.
*******
