H.G. Ramesh, J (Oral) : In suits instituted for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction relating to immovable properties, whether issue of title will be directly and substantially in issue, is the question that needs an answer in this writ petition. Answer: In a suit for Injunction simpliciter, there is no need to frame any issue relating to title as issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue except where the suit property is a vacant site or a vacant non-agricultural land and a cloud is raised over the plaintiffs title in respect of such vacant site or land.

A suit for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is maintainable. The mere fact that the question of title may have to be gone into in deciding whether an injunction can be given or not is no justification for holding that the suit is for declaration of title and for injunction.

2. This writ petition is by the defendants and is directed against an interlocutory order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Gudibande in the suit in O.S.No. 178 of 2008 rejecting their application to frame an issue regarding title in respect of the suit land. The suit is one for grant of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners-defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property which is an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 7 guntas in Gudibande taluk. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the application on the ground that there is no need to frame an issue regarding title in a suit for injunction simpliciter.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, though the suit is only for grant of permanent Injunction, as the petitioners-defendants have disputed the plaintiffs' title to the suit property, the trial Court ought to have framed an issue regarding title of the suit land. In support of his submission, he relied on a two Judge Bench-decision of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy [(2008)4 SCC 594].

4. In my opinion, the impugned order is in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar wherein the Supreme Court has summarized the position of law in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable properties in the following words :

"21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiffs title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiffs title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiffs lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [(2005)6 SCC 202]). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for inju