Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Ramchander – Appellant
Versus
Shanker – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 209/2016
Decided On : 28-06-2022
Possession - Civil Procedure - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1953 - No. 43/1997 - The court discussed the legal principle of 'No possession No injunction' and its application in the case. The court also referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shri Tninnnaiah v. Shabiras and ors. [2008 DNJ SC 133], Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722], Santosh Hazari v. Purushottamn Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179], State Bank of India v. Emmsons International Limited [(2011) 12 SCC174], Jagannath v. Arulappa [(2005) 12 SCC 303], Arumugham v. Sundarambal [JT 1994 (4) SC464], Umerkhan v. Bismillabi [(2011) 9 SCC 684], and Gurnam Singh v. Lehna Singh [(2019) 7 SCC 641].
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership and exclusive possession over a piece of land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first appellate court dismissed the suit based on the principle of 'No possession No injunction'. The second appeal was filed challenging the first appellate court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove actual and exclusive possession over the suit plot, and the first appellate court acted within its jurisdiction in reversing the findings of the trial court. It held that no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Ownership and possession of the suit plot, applicability of the principle 'No possession No injunction', jurisdiction of the first appellate court, and substantial question of law in the second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiff to prove actual and exclusive possession, the first appellate court's jurisdiction to reverse trial court findings, and the absence of any substantial question of law in the second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was found to be devoid of merits and dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 passed in Civil First Appeal No.19/2010 by the Additional District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa whereby first appeal has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.43/1997 by the Civil Jude (Junior Division) Lalsot, District Dausa has been quashed and consequently the civil suit for permanent injunction filed by appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.
3. The dispute between parties is in relation to an open piece of land measuring 13X6 square yards situated at village Daulatpura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. Appellant-plaintiff instituted a simpliciter civil suit for permanent injunction on 13.11.1997, claiming his absolute ownership and exclusive possession over the suit plot on the basis of patta dated 03.02.1991 issued by the Gram Panchayat, Daulatpura. It was prayed by plaintiff that defendants be restrained not to interfere in his possession and not to enter in possession of the suit plot nor to raise any construction thereupon. The suit plot was shown in the site map appended with the plaint with four boundaries. In order to establish his possession, plaintiff's solely placed reliance upon the patta dated 03.02.1991 (Exhibit-1). Defendants submitted written statement and denied the ownership and possession of plaintiff over the suit plot rather alleged that the suit plot is in actual and physical possession of defendants. It was contended that simpliciter suit for permanent injunction without possession of plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Learned trial Court, as per rival pleadings of parties framed issues and accord opportunity to parties to adduce their respective evidence. Plaintiff exhibited his patta Exhibit-1 and report of site Commissioner and produced witnesses PW1 to PW3. Defendants did not adduce any evidence. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 03.12.2010 decreed the plaintiff's suit and restrained the defendants by way of permanent injunction not to interfere in use and occupation of the suit plot by plaintiff and further not to raise any permanent or temporary construction over the suit plot.
4. Defendants, feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 preferred first appeal. During course of first defendants moved application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to place on record copy of two judgments dated 26.07.2011 and 08.11.2012, dismissing the application for disobedience of the stay order filed by plaintiff. Appellate Court allowed the application and both Judgments were taken on record vide order dated 14.10.2015 and were allowed to be exhibited.
5. The Appellate Court, re-appreciate plaintiff's pleadings and evidence and observed that four boundaries of the suit plot as mentioned in patta dated 03.02.1991 Exhibit-1 do not match with the four boundaries of the suit plot shown in the site plan produced by plaintiff as part of plaint. The Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence of PW1 and PW2 observed that plaintiff is not in actual possession of the suit plot rather admits that one of defendant- Shanker has entered into possession and kept his Thadi on the suit plot. The Appellate Court also considered the report of Court Commissioner (Exhibit-2) to observe that goods and articles of defendants were found on the suit plot. It was observed that plaintiff's has miserably failed to prove his actual and exclusive possession over the suit plot. It was observed that without possession of plaintiff, his suit for permanent injunction to protect possession is not liable to succeed. The Appellate Court, on placing reliance on the principle of law "No possession No injunction", declined to grant any decree in permanent injunction and consequently set aside the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 and dismissed the plaintiff's
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle 'No possession No injunction' and the jurisdiction of the first appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and reve....
When the plaintiff's title to the property is in dispute and there is a threat of dispossession, the plaintiff should sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.
A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaration of title, as possession alone does not confer legal rights.
In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving actual possession of the specific suit survey number; reliance on ambiguous tax receipts that do not reference the contested l....
Injunction sustainable on proved possession without declaration if no title cloud or property identity with prior decree established.
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
