Back
2009 (II) OLR (SC) — 388
R. V. RAVEENDRAN & P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.
Anathula Sudhakar... Petitioner
Versus
P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors.... Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6191 OF 2001
Decided on 25th March, 2008.
(Paras - 7, 8 and 27)
2. INJUNCTION - Simpliciter - Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie.
A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. (Para - 11.1)
3. INJUNCTION - Possession - Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction - A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
(Para - 11.2)
4. INJUNCTION - Possession - Declaration - Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.
(Para - 11.3)
5. SUIT - Permanent injunction - Plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession - Detail stated.
Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.
But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed ? In such cases the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.
(Paras - 13 and 14)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
Scope of Suit for Injunction: A suit for permanent injunction can be maintained if the plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of the property and such possession is interfered with or threatened. The plaintiff has the right to seek an injunction against someone who does not prove a better title. However, a person in wrongful possession cannot seek an injunction against the rightful owner (!) .
Possession and Title:
If the plaintiff’s title is disputed or under a cloud, or if they are not in possession, they must file a suit for declaration of title along with possession and injunction. The same applies if the defendant asserts a claim of title and threatens dispossession (!) .
Suit for Permanent Injunction: The plaintiff must prove that they were in lawful possession on the date of the suit and that the defendant interfered with that possession. Possession can be established through physical presence, lawful possession, or actual use and cultivation, especially in the case of agricultural land. The issue of title is incidental and not primary in such suits (!) .
Possession of Vacant Sites: In cases involving vacant sites, possession follows title. If two parties claim possession, the one who can establish clear title is considered in possession. Determining the title may be necessary as a preliminary step, especially if the title is straightforward. If the title involves complex questions, courts should not decide it in a suit for injunction but should instead direct parties to a full declaration suit (!) (!) .
Evidence and Pleadings:
In the absence of pleadings and issues on title, courts should not examine or decide complicated questions of fact and law regarding ownership. Such cases should be relegated to a comprehensive suit for declaration of title (!) .
On the Nature of Evidence:
Evidence that suggests a person was represented as the owner (ostensible owner) and acts supporting that claim can support a case under certain legal provisions. However, such evidence must be based on pleadings and issues raised in the suit (!) .
Jurisdiction of Higher Courts:
Higher courts, such as the appellate or supreme courts, should not re-examine factual questions of title that were not the subject of the original issues. They should restrict themselves to questions properly arising from pleadings and issues in the suit (!) .
Legal Consequences:
Courts should exercise caution and discretion, ensuring that they do not decide on complex title issues in suits that are only for injunction, unless the facts are straightforward and properly pleaded (!) (!) .
Final Decision:
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. — This appeal by special leave is by the defendant in a suit for permanent injunction. Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Both are now no more. The Legal Representatives of Puli Chandra Reddy are Respondents 2 to 5 and Legal Representatives of Puli Buchi Reddy are Respondent 1 (i) to (iii). The suit related to two sites bearing no. 13/776/B and 13/776/C measuring 110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards in Matwada, Warangal town, together referred to as the ‘suit property’.
2. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 claimed to be the respective owners in possession of the said two sites having purchased them under two registered sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 (Exs.A1 and A2) from Rukminibai. The plaintiffs further claimed that the said two sites were mutated in their names in the municipal records. They alleged that on 3.5.1978, when they were digging trenches in order to commence construction, the defendant interfered with the said work. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed suit OS No.279 of 1978 in the file of Principal District Munsiff, Warangal, for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession.
3. Defendant resisted the suit. He claimed that suit property measuring 300 sq. yards in Premises No. 13/776 was purchased by him from K. V. Damodar Rao (brother of plaintiffs’ vendor Rukminibai) under registered sale deed dated 7.11.1977 (Ex.B1); that he was put in possession of the suit property by Damodar Rao; that the suit property had been transferred to his name in the municipal records; that he applied for and obtained sanction of a plan for construction of a building thereon; and that he had also obtained a loan for such construction from the Central Government by mortgaging the said property. According to him, when he commenced construction in the suit property, the plaintiffs tried to interfere with his possession and filed a false suit claiming to be in possession.
4. The trial court framed the following issues - (i) whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the suit sites (house plots)? (ii) whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit plots ? (iii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction; and (iv) to what relief. The plaintiffs examined themselves as PW 1 and PW 2. They examined their vendor Rukminibai as PW 4. Puli Malla Reddy and Vadula Ramachandram examined as PW 3 and PW 5, were the purchasers of two adjacent sites from Rukminibai. One of them (PW 3) was the cousin of plaintiffs and was also the scribe and attestor in respect of the two sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs exhibited the two sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 in their favour as Ex.A1 and A2 and municipal demand notices and tax receipts, all of the year 1978 onwards, as Ex.A3 to A11. A plan showing the sites was marked as Ex.A12. Two letters said to have written by Damodar Rao were marked as Ex.A13 and A14. The sale deed executed by Rukminibai in favour of PW3 was marked as Ex.X1 and sale agreement in favour of PW5 was marked as Ex.X2. The defendant gave evidence as DW 1 and examined his vendor Damodar Rao as DW 2. He exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.11.1977 in his favour as Ex.B1, a certified copy of mortgage deed executed by him in favour of Central Government as Ex.B2, the licence and sanctioned plan for construction of a house in the suit plot as Ex.B3 and B4 and the loan sanction proceedings as Ex.B5. He also exhibited a property tax receipt dated 12.2.1978 issued to Damodar Rao (Ex.B6), water charge bill dated 20.9.1978 for house No. 13/775 and 13/776 issued to Damodar Rao (Ex.B7), and property tax receipts dated 19.2.1972, 14.10.1973, 28.3.1970 and 13.11.1968 in the name of Damodar Rao (Ex. B8 to B11).
5. There was no dispute that the site purchased by the defendant from Damodar Rao under deed dated 7.11.1977 is the same as the two sites purchased by plaintiff
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
