1. Dispute over land sale via registered deed — Suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration of title, and permanent injunction based on alleged fraud and partial possession. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 718
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) Through L.R.s - Appellants
Versus
Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1382 OF 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2022
The plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
Headnote:
possession - land dispute - Specific Relief Act - Section 38, Section 41
Fact of the Case:
The dispute was over a land sale deed executed in 1975. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant fraudulently got the sale deed registered for the entire land instead of 1 acre. The trial court held that the defendant purchased the entire land but granted permanent injunction for 5 acres and 15 gunthas in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, arguing that the injunction was contrary to the Specific Relief Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's possession was not lawful and that the relief of permanent injunction was a consequential relief, which was barred by limitation. The court also held that the plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's possession was not lawful and that the relief of permanent injunction was a consequential relief, which was barred by limitation. The court also held that the plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendant. The entire suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
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?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether permanent injunction is maintainable against a true owner when the substantive relief of declaration is denied and the possession is alleged to be unlawful. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Registered deeds create deemed knowledge; injunctions cannot protect unlawful possession against a true owner; due process of law is satisfied upon judicial adjudication of rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Permanent injunction cannot be granted against a true owner in favor of a person in unlawful possession, particularly when the substantive relief of declaration is barred. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — Judgment and decree granting permanent injunction quashed and set aside — Suit dismissed. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Can a permanent injunction be granted against the true owner of a property?
An injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder in favor of a trespasser or person in unlawful possession. If the dispute over title is settled against the plaintiff, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. (Para 9 )
7. What is the effect on a consequential relief of injunction if the substantive relief of declaration is barred by limitation?
If the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the consequential relief of permanent injunction is also barred, as the title to the property is the basis for the relief of possession. (Para 11 )
8. What constitutes lawful possession for the purpose of granting a permanent injunction?
Lawful possession is possession that is legal or authorized by law. A person who fails to obtain declaratory relief against a true owner cannot be said to be in lawful possession. (Para 10 , 11 )
9. What does due process of law mean regarding the dispossession of a person in settled possession?
Due process means a person in settled possession will not be dispossessed without an opportunity to file pleadings before a court. This requirement is satisfied once the rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent court. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Second Appeal No. 8 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court further confirmed by the First Appellate Court granting injunction in favour of the original plaintiff restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff, the original defendant has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the dispute is with respect to the land bearing Revenue Survey No.49 ad-measuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas situated at the village Mahadeviya, District Deesa. The husband of the original plaintiff had executed a Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 in favour of the appellant herein – original defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “original defendant”) by which he sold his agricultural land in question.
2.1 That on the basis of the sale deed, the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in the Revenue record in the year 1976 itself. All throughout the name of the original defendant No.1 was mutated in the Revenue record as an owner right from the year 1976 onwards. It is the case on behalf of the defendants that thereafter between 1975 to 1997, he had authorised and completed construction projects on the land. He also availed a bank loan where the suit property was given as a collateral security.
2.2 That in the year 1999, the husband of the original plaintiff, who executed the registered sale deed died. That after a period of approximately 22 years, respondent No.1 herein – original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “original plaintiff”) instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 123 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deesa for the reliefs of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975, declaration and permanent injunction.
2.3 The case on behalf of the original plaintiff was that her husband was addicted to liquor and as the family was in need of finances, her husband decided to sell 1 acre of the land out of total 6 acres and 15 gunthas to the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 taking advantage fraudulently got the sale deed registered of the entire suit property, i.e., 6 acres and 15 gunthas. Therefore, it was the case on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 played a fraud upon her family. According to the plaintiff, the possession of only 1 acre was handed over to the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the remaining 5 acres and 15 gunthas of land. It is the case of the plaintiff, no sooner she came to learn about the alleged fraud and as the defendant No.1 tried to disturb her settled possession in the suit land, she instituted the regular civil suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
2.4 The suit was opposed by defendant No.1. It was the specific case on behalf of the defendant No.1 that he has purchased the entire land, i.e., 6 acres and 15 gunthas under the registered sale deed duly executed by the husband of the plaintiff. It was also the case on behalf of the defendant No.1 that he is in possession of the entire suit land and is cultivating the same since many years. According to the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the plaintiff joined the brothers of her husband as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 against whom as such no reliefs were claimed.
2.5 The trial court framed the following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiff proves that her husband had given in writing 1 acre land located on the North from survey no. 49 paiki for construction of well?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant no.1 along with defendant no. 2 and 3 got the sale deed of survey no. 49 admeasuring 6 acre - 15 guntha land executed. on 17/6/75 for Rs. 4000/- from her husband falsely?
3. Whether the defendant proves that the husband of plaintiff had
