Injunctions cannot be granted when an adequate remedy, like specific performance, exists, in accordance with the Specific Relief Act, and High Courts must limit their appeal jurisdiction to substantial questions of law only.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Specific Relief Act - Section 41(h) - Second appeal against dismissal of suit for permanent injunction without seeking specific performance - The High Court's jurisdiction limited to substantial questions of law, not factual reappraisal - The courts below concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove essential elements for a suit of injunction and could pursue specific performance instead. (Paras 4, 7, 12, 21, 25)

(B) Maintainability of suit - An injunction cannot be granted if an adequate alternative remedy exists, as per Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. (Paras 20, 22)

(C) Substantial question of law - The court emphasized that the right to appeal is not automatic; there must be an error in exercising discretion or legal principles. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed permanent injunction against the first defendant's actions to sell property without executing the sale deed despite a prior agreement but failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim, which was dismissed by both trial and appellate courts.

Findings of Court:
The courts below found that the plaintiff's action for an injunction without seeking specific performance was not maintainable, affirming the dismissal.

Issues: Whether a suit for permanent injunction can be maintained without seeking relief for specific performance, and whether the evidence presented sufficed to support the plaintiff's claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff could not seek an injunction when an adequate remedy of specific performance was available under the law, reinforcing the limitation of the High Court's review in such matters.

Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. jurisdiction constraints under section 100 cpc. (Para 4 , 5)
3. claim of ownership and the nature of the agreements. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 18)
4. issues regarding maintainability of the suit. (Para 12 , 13 , 22)
5. conditions under which injunctions cannot be granted. (Para 15 , 20 , 21)
6. no substantial question of law established. (Para 24 , 25)
7. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

The Second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.79 of 2024, dated 18.09.2025 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bodinayakanur, Theni District, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.35 of 2004, dated 30.06.2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. She filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Bodinayakanur, claiming permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from encumbering or alienating the suit property till the execution of the sale deed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

3.The defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, after framing necessary issues and after full trial, passed a judgment and decree, dated 30.06.2008, dismissing the suit. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.79 of 2024 and the learned Subordinate Judge, Bodinayakanur, upon considering the materials available on record and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment, dated 18.09.2025, dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

4. At the outset, it is necessary to refer the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court for High Courts in deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , given in the case of Gurnam Singh (dead) by LRs., and others Vs. Lehna Singh (dead) by LRs., reported in AIR 2019 SC 1441 , that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:

“18. Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below and/or the First Appellate Court and if the First Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in Second Appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in the case of Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264, despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law.”

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1273 has specifically held that right of appeal is not automatic and right of appeal is conferred by statute and when statute confers a limited right of appeal restricted only to cases which involve substantial questions of law, it is not open to the High Court to s