Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
Kanta and Others – Appellants
Versus
Soma Devi (Dead) Through Lr. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011
Decided On : 06-02-2026
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 38 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – Suit for perpetual injunction, alternatively for recovery of possession – Plaintiff for relief of perpetual injunction, along with prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, must also prove actual possession of suit schedule on the date of filing of suit – Possession on the date of filing suit is an essential requisite for granting perpetual injunction – Findings recorded are that plaintiff was not in possession of suit schedule property – In a suit for recovery of possession, one of essential conditions is (i) entitlement, (ii) manner of entitlement, (iii) specifics on the date and mode of dispossession, and conversely (iv) what is nature of possession claimed by defendant, and how it is illegal – In case on hand, these pleadings are completely absent – A few bits and pieces of evidence without pleading cannot be appreciated – First relief rightly rejected by reckoning plea and proof placed by plaintiff – Regarding alternative relief of recovery of possession, plaint is bereft of required details on alleged date of dispossession and basis on which recovery of possession is prayed for – In absence of material pleadings and evidence, suit of plaintiff rightly dismissed. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Through judgment dated 20.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed suit. Plaintiff filed appeal numbered as Civil Appeal No. 124/92, 213/94/92 before Additional District Judge, Una. First Appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 08.04.1998, allowed appeal of plaintiff. Defendant filed RSA No. 221 of 1998 before High Court, and through impugned judgment, Second Appeal was allowed.
Findings of Court:
First appellate court has fastened burden on 1st defendant and has also drawn a few adverse inferences on the case pleaded by 1st defendant. Without a detailed narrative of position in law in this behalf, approach of first appellate court is erroneous and failed to appreciate nature of prayers and frame of suit.
Result : Civil Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Possession on the date of filing the suit is an essential requisite for granting a perpetual injunction (!) (!) . - For a suit for recovery of possession, essential conditions include entitlement, manner of entitlement, specifics on the date and mode of dispossession, and the nature and illegality of the defendant's possession (!) (!) . - A few bits and pieces of evidence without proper pleadings cannot be appreciated (!) (!) . - The plaint must contain required details regarding the alleged date of dispossession and the basis for praying for recovery of possession (!) . - The approach of a first appellate court can be erroneous if it fails to appreciate the nature of prayers and the frame of the suit (!) . - A plaintiff seeking a perpetual injunction must prove actual possession of the suit schedule on the date of filing the suit, along with a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss (!) . - The High Court held that a right to maintenance, under Shastric Hindu Law, ripened into absolute ownership for a female Hindu under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (!) . - The High Court rejected a claim of succession based on a Will if the plea was not taken in the original plaint but introduced later (!) . - The plaintiff's suit was dismissed because the plaintiff was not in possession and lacked material pleadings and evidence for both perpetual injunction and recovery of possession (!) (!) . - The first appellate court's approach was considered erroneous for fastening the burden on the defendant and drawing adverse inferences without a detailed legal narrative (!) .
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. The Appeal arises from the judgment dated 24.07.2010 in RSA No. 221 of 1998 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
2. Sham Sunder (Since Deceased) filed Case No. 496 of 1990 before the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Una. The Civil Appeal is prosecuted by the plaintiff's LRs. CS No. 496 of 1990 was at the first instance filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in any manner from agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals – 05 Marlas in Khewat No. 194, Khatuni No. 1029, Khasra Nos. 4647, 4701, 4702 4742 situated in Village Lohara, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The plaintiff amended the plaint to include the prayer for recovery of possession from the defendant.
3. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner, and the co-owner is in exclusive Hisadari possession of the plaintiff. The defendants are strangers and have no right, title, or interest in the suit schedule. The cause of action for filing the suit was the threatened interference of defendants, who are powerful, with plaintiff’s possession, and refusing to admit the plaintiff’s claim to the suit schedule. The first defendant resisted the suit claim in all fours, and the principal averment which has bearing for the disposal of the Civil Appeal is that the first defendant is in possession of the suit schedule, and the first defendant traces her entitlement through her husband, Late Roshan Lal. According to the 1st Defendant, Roshan Lal died about 36 years before the filing of the Written Statement, and the 1st defendant’s father-in-law, as Karta of the family of the Lakhu, has granted the right of enjoyment of the suit schedule in lieu of maintenance. The right of maintenance has ripened into an absolute right.
4. The plaintiff is not in possession, and the prayer for recovery of possession is also unavailable. The Trial Court framed two issues:
5. Through the judgment dated 20.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal numbered as Civil Appeal No. 124/92, 213/94/92 before the Additional District Judge, Una. The First Appellate Court, by judgment and decree dated 08.04.1998, allowed the appeal of the plaintiff. The defendant filed RSA No. 221 of 1998 before the High Court, and through the impugned judgment, the Second Appeal was allowed.
6. Hence, the Civil Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.
7. The findings of the High Court are summarised hereunder:
7.1 The High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred in concluding that the suit land was not given to Soma Devi for maintenance. The High Court concluded that her father-in-law had granted the land in lieu of maintenance following the death of her husband. The High Court held that the right to maintenance is a pre-existing right under Shastric Hindu Law. Relying on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the High Court held that Soma Devi’s limited interest in the property acquired in lieu of maintenance automatically ripened into absolute ownership. The High Court emphasised that Section 14(1) is of wide amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, regardless of whether it was possessed before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act. The High Court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim of succession based on a Will executed by his grandfather, holding that the plea regarding the Will was not taken in the original plaint but was introduced for the first time in the replication.
8. Mr. Mohit D Ram contends that the High Court committed an illegality by not recognising the right of the plaintiff to a 1/6th share in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff’s name is entered in the revenue record, and the possession of the first defenda
(1) Perpetual injunction – Possession on the date of filing suit is an essential requisite for granting perpetual injunction.(2) A few bits and pieces of evidence without pleading cannot be appreciat....
In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove prima facie possession of the property; the weakness of the defendants' case cannot justify relief.
A plaintiff not in possession must seek recovery of possession to maintain a suit for injunction; failure renders the suit non-maintainable.
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is upheld in injunction suits despite title disputes, reaffirming the principle of protecting long settled possession from forcible eviction without due process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
