Plaintiffs' failure to establish title through a sale deed results in denial of injunction against titled owners, affirming that ownership rights supersede mere possession.

JUDGMENT :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

These two Second Appeals arise from the judgment and decree in a suit for declaration of title, based on the registered sale deed, and in the alternative, on a plea of adverse possession.

2. The suit is decreed in part, declining the relief of declaration of title based on the sale deed as well as adverse possession. A decree for injunction is granted, holding that the plaintiffs are in possession.

3. Both plaintiffs’ First Appeal against the decree declining relief of declaration of title and defendants’ appeal against the decree granting injunction are dismissed, and the Trial Court judgment is affirmed. Hence, these two appeals, one by the plaintiffs and the other by the defendants.

4. Claim for declaration of title stems under the sale deed dated 15.07.1971, said to have been executed by the plaintiffs' father's vendor. Alternative relief of declaration of title, by adverse possession is also sought, in the event of plaintiffs not establishing title under the sale deed.

5. Both Courts concurrently held that the plaintiff’s father’s vendor did not have the title. Declaration based on adverse possession is rejected for want of necessary plea and evidence on adverse possession.

6. Both Courts concurrently held that plaintiffs’ are in possession, without title and decree for injunction is granted against the defendants who held to be the owners.

7. These appeals are admitted vide order dated 18.01.2016 to answer the following substantial question of law:

"Whether both the Courts below have committed a serious error in granting the equitable relief of injunction by ignoring the material evidence, i.e. Ex.D1-registered partition deed and Ex.P1-sale deed under which the plaintiff claims to be the owner."

8. This Court, after hearing both parties, framed the following two substantial questions of law and heard both counsel on all substantial questions of law.

(i) “Whether Trial Court and First Appellate Court were justified in granting an injunction against the defendants after adjudicating that plaintiffs are not the owners and defendants are the owners”.

(ii) In a suit for declaration of title and injunction, after recording the finding that the plaintiffs are not the owners but in possession, and defendants are the owners without possession, could there be a decree for possession in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs?

9. Parties to the present appeals are referred to as per their respective designation before the Trial Court.

10. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that plaintiffs' father's vendor (‘vendor’) for short who is the brother of defendants had sold the property to the plaintiffs' father under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1971 and since then, the plaintiffs' father was in the exclusive possession of the property and after the death of the plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the property and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the same.

11. It is urged that the defendants were very much aware of the execution of the sale deed by the vendor who is the brother of defendants, in favour of the plaintiffs' father. Plaintiffs' father came in possession of the property under the registered