Key Points: - The plaintiff lost the title dispute but was granted a permanent injunction by trial court; higher courts varied on whether injunction could stand against the true owner (!) (!) - High Court and Supreme Court discuss that permanent injunction may be a consequential relief, barred when declaratory relief is barred by limitation, and that injunction against a true owner is unsustainable if title is settled against the plaintiff (!) (!) (!) - The defendant being held as true owner with possession of entire land based on registered sale deed; revenue records show defendant as owner/cultivator from 1976 onward, implying plaintiff had knowledge of title/possession history (!) (!) - The Court ultimately held that the appeal succeeds and the permanent injunction is quashed; entire suit dismissed, against the true owner (!)

What is the legal effect of losing the title dispute on the plaintiff’s entitlement to a permanent injunction against the true owner?

What are the conditions under which a plaintiff in possession may be granted a permanent injunction against the true owner, and when is such injunction unsustainable?

What constitutes the distinction between substantive relief and consequential relief in a suit for cancellation/declaration and injunction, and how does that affect maintainability of injunction against the true owner?