A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable without a declaration of title, as possession alone does not confer legal rights.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.1.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phalodi, District Jodhpur ('the trial court') and judgment and decree dated 16.12.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur ('the first appellate court') whereby, the suit filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction has been dismissed and the appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed, respectively.

2. The appellant filed a suit inter alia with the averments that pursuant to a sale deed dated 18.1.1983 (Exhibit-2), the plaintiff along with her children - respondents No.4 to 9, is in possession of plot of land and that the respondents - defendants were seeking to dispossess the plaintiff and, therefore, injunction be granted.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 inter alia disputing that the plot sought to be claimed by the plaintiff pursuant to the sale deed dated 18.1.1983, is not the plot, which is in possession of the defendant. Further averments made in the plaint were denied and it was claimed that the plot was purchased from Omprakash and Meghraj, who were having their Salt Industry over the land and he is in possession of the plot and, therefore, the suit was liable to dismissed.

4. Based on the averments of the parties, the trial court framed eight issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, four witnesses were examined and 28 documents were exhibited.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants and their predecessors were in possession of the plot in question, the plaintiff was not in possession of plot, which is in possession of the defendants and in absence of a suit seeking declaration, a simple suit for possession was not maintainable.

6. The trial court framed an issue regarding the fact as to whether the patta and the transfer in favour of the defendants in view of the fact that there was already a patta in favour of the plaintiff, the same was void and answered the same by indicating that as no suit for declaration has been filed, no such finding can be recorded and based on its findings, rejected the suit.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal.

8. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, came to a specific conclusion that as the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, the trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the plaint.

9. On issue no.2, the first appellate court again came to the conclusion that as the patta (Exhibit-1) produced by the appellant was not registered and for other reasons, which have been indicated, it cannot be said that the patta in favour of the defendants is automatically void and consequently, dismissed the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the two courts below were not justified in dismissing the suit and the appeal. Submissions have been made that the appellant is aggrieved by decision on issue no.2, wherein, the two courts below have come to the conclusion that the patta issued in favour of the predecessor of defendants and transfer in their favour, were not void in absence of seeking a declaration.

11. Further submissions have been made that though findings of fact have been recorded regarding the possession of the plaintiff, the same is of no consequence, insofar as, the finding on issue no.2 is concerned and, therefore, the finding on issue no.2 give rise to a substantial question of law.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents - defendants supported the judgments impugned.

13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

14. The two courts below after thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties came to a categorical conclusion that the plaintiff in her cross-examination specifically admitted that she was never in possession of the p