Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Kangabam Biramangol Singh
Versus
Laimayum Ningol Aribam Ongbi Madhabi Devi
Civil Revn. Case No.9 of 1961
Decided On : 20-02-1962
INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULE 1 C.P.C. - PROPERTY IN DISPUTE - WASTING, DAMAGING OR ALIENATION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - POSSESSION - ORDER 39 RULE 2 C.P.C. - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE - SECTION 42 SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - PRELIMINARY ISSUE - COURT'S DUTY - SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK APPLIED BY THE COURT IN REACHING ITS DECISION : In a suit for declaration of title, where the plaintiff claims to be in possession, there is no property in dispute within the meaning of Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. and hence no temporary injunction can be granted to either party to restrain the other from interfering with his possession. An injunction against alienation of the property in dispute can be granted only if the applicant has a prima facie case, irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction was not granted and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the injunction. An injunction against interference with possession can be claimed only by a plaintiff to the suit and that too only under Order 39 Rule 2 in a suit which is for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind. In a suit for mere declaration of title, the question of possession of the property is not material and hence no injunction regarding possession can be granted to any party during the pendency of such a suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title to certain land, alleging that he purchased the land from the second respondent and was in possession of it. The first respondent, who claimed title to the land based on a sale deed executed in her favor by the second respondent, filed an application for temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiff and the second respondent from interfering with her possession. The Munsiff granted the injunction ex parte without issuing notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's appeal against the injunction order was dismissed by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application for temporary injunction was incompetent as there was no property in dispute in the suit. Even if there was a property in dispute, the court was not satisfied that the property was in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. The court further held that an injunction against interference with possession could not be granted to the first respondent as she was not the plaintiff in the suit. The court also held that the question of possession was not material in a suit for mere declaration of title and hence no injunction regarding possession could be granted to any party during the pendency of such a suit.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a property in dispute in the suit. 2. Whether the property was in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated. 3. Whether an injunction against interference with possession could be granted to the first respondent. 4. Whether the question of possession was material in a suit for mere declaration of title.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a suit for declaration of title, where the plaintiff claims to be in possession, there is no property in dispute within the meaning of Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. 2. An injunction against alienation of the property in dispute can be granted only if the applicant has a prima facie case, irreparable injury would be caused if the injunction was not granted and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the injunction. 3. An injunction against interference with possession can be claimed only by a plaintiff to the suit and that too only under Order 39 Rule 2 in a suit which is for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind. 4. In a suit for mere declaration of title, the question of possession of the property is not material and hence no injunction regarding possession can be granted to any party during the pendency of such a suit.
Final Decision: The court set aside the temporary injunction order of the Munsiff and the confirmation of the said order in appeal, and dismissed the application for temporary injunction filed by the first respondent.
2. The petitioner filed T.S. No.121 of 1958 before the Munsiff on 19-11-1958 for a declaration of his title to certain land. His case was that the second respondent herein, who is the second defendant in the suit, sold the said land to him on 4-1-1957 and delivered possession to him and that ever since then he has been in possession of the said land. He further alleged that in the course of the patta transfer proceedings he came to know that there was a fictitious sale deed dated 3-6-1949 in the name of the first respondent-first defendant and his allegation was that the said sale deed was a forgery and did not convey any title or possession in the said land to the first respondent. The second respondent as second defendant filed written statement supporting the petitioners case. The first respondent in his written statement defended the sale deed dated 3-6-1949 in her favour and stated that after the said sale deed patta was transferred in her name and that she has been in possession of the land ever since. She, therefore, contended that the petitioner had no cause of action for the suit and that proper court-fee has not been paid.
3. The Munsiff raised issues 1 and 2 on the question of title. He raised the 3rd issue as to who has been in possession of the said lands. The 4th issue related to the question whether the plaintiff had any cause of action and the 5th issue was whether proper court fee has been paid for the suit. After the issues were thus raised on 13-1-1959, the suit underwent 6 adjournments upto 21-12-1959. On 21-12-1959, the plaintiff was not ready and the first respondent also did not object to an adjournment and the case was posted to 23-2-1960.
4. On 23-1-1960, the first respondent filed a petition which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 1960 praying for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from alienating the land and further restraining the plaintiff and respondent 2 and their men from entering upon the suit land. In that petition, the first respondent alleged that she has been in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit land continuously from 1949 and that she apprehended that the plaintiff on a false plea of possession was attempting to cultivate the land to deprive the first respondent of her interest and right in the land, that she further felt that the plaintiff and the second respondent may cause waste or disturbance to the peaceful possession of the suit land by the first respondent and further that the plaintiff was trying to alienate the suit land before the Manipur Land Reforms Bill became an Act.
5. This petition was taken up by the Munsiff on 25-1-1960 and without any notice to the plaintiff or to the second respondent he issued an interim order restraining the plaintiff and second respondent from interfering with respondent 1s possession till the hearing of the petition which he posted to 23-2-1960. On 23-2-1960, the plaintiff filed a counter to the petition, in which he stated that the land was in his possession, that no petition for injunction under Order 39 C.P.C. was maintainable, as the question of possession of the land was an important issue for the adjudication of the rights of parties in the suit itself. The Munsiff heard arguments on this petition on 22-3-1960 and fixed it for orders on 18-4-1960. On 18-4-1960, he did not pronounce orders, but he did so on 19-4-1960, confirming the interim injunction already issued by him in favour of the first respondent. A perusal of the order shows that the only point considered by the Munsiff was that the fir
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
