Honble TATIA, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2). In this case, the trial court refused the injunction by order dated 11.4.2001 in a suit filed by the appellant plaintiff. According to the learned counsel for the appellant since appellant is in settled possession of the land in dispute, therefore, he has a right to protect his possession and no one can take law in his own hands to evict him, even a true owner has no right to dispossess him from the land in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the appellant plaintiff was in possession when the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the Shri Bhura Ram. The title to the land vesting in Bhura Ram is not in dispute and therefore, when the plaintiff was in possession for about 20 years then his settled possession cannot be disturbed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Bhura Ram executed a sale deed dated 20.4.1981 in favour of 76 persons and by this act Bhura Ram transferred his big land including land in dispute also in favour of the purchasers. Despite the above sale deed in favour of above persons, the plaintiff remained in possession of the land. The land which is in dispute is said to be marked as Plot No. 29 and the registered title deed is in the name of Chuni Lal executed by the above Bhura Ram. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant plaintiff entered into the agreement (dated 15.3.91) with one Shri Mohan Lal for purchase of this very Plot No. 29 though it was standing in the name of Chuni Lal as owner. Mohan Lal or Chuni Lal did not execute any sale deed in favour of plaintiff and when Chuni Lal tried to sell the land in favour of other persons the defendants, then the plaintiff resisted that sale by raising the objections and by submitting that plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute. But the registering authority under the impression that they are required to register the document executed by the seller in favour of the purchasers threatened to dispossess the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by Chuni Lal in favour of purchasers defendants and sought the relief of injunction. Again learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial court by impugned order merely dismissed the injunction application of the plaintiff appellant with respect to Plot No. 29 on the ground that the plaintiff has not having title of the land and the defendants are the title holders, therefore, the Court cannot grant injunction against true owner on the request of the person having no title. However trial court granted injunction with respect to the Plot No. 28 for which the defendants have not claimed any right.

(3). Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the various judgments and submitted that the appellant plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession by the help of injunction. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LRs. vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao (1), wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that it is well-settled law in this country that where as person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. In the aforesaid case, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of premises upon which she had entered as a licensee to conduct the business of restaurant and she was subsequently dispossessed by the licensor unlawfully and behind her back. Therefore, the Apex Court held that decree for recovery of possession is the relief for which the plaintiff was entitled. The above judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court in a Special Appeal against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay delivered in regular First Appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document