A permanent injunction cannot be granted against co-owners without establishing clear possession or valid title, especially when title is disputed.

Key Points: - (!) The case discusses that injunctions cannot be maintained against co-owners where title is disputed and possession is in question. - (!) The appellants challenge that they are in possession due to purchase; the court analyzes possession as a prerequisite for injunction. - (!) - (!) Division Bench guidance on co-owners: injunction not generally maintainable against a co-owner in possession; partition or declaration may be appropriate. - (!) - (!) Supreme Court guidance: where title is in dispute, permanent injunction without declaration is not maintainable; need declaration of title with possession or partition. - (!) - (!) The appellate court could not declare sale deeds invalid in a suit for injunction; proper remedy would be for declaration or partition. - (!) - (!) Anathula Sudhakar principles: in possession cases, declaration may be needed; in certain scenarios, possession alone can support injunction if title is not in dispute, but if title is in dispute, declaration is required. - (!) - (!) Issues framed included ownership/possession and validity of sale deeds; indicates core questions relate to possession, title, and transactions between co-owners. - (!) - (!) Documents of partition/mutual transfers not reflected in revenue records; private partition not binding without statutory formalities; affects maintainability of injunction against co-owners.

Question 1?

How to determine whether a suit for permanent injunction can be maintained against co-owners when title is disputed and possession is in question?

Question 2?

What is the proper remedy when co-owners seek to challenge or contest private partitions or sales affecting the property?

Question 3?

What is the role of possession vs. title in injunctions under the Specific Relief Act, and when must a declaration of title be sought?

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

CM-10554-C-2025 IN RSA-5524-2014

Present application under Section 151 CPC is filed for permission to place on record the Synopsis, List of Dates and Sequence of events along with the translated copies of the relevant Lower Court Record.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of Vineet Aggarwal s/o Brijeshwar Aggarwal, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and aforesaid documents are taken on record.

RSA-5524-2014

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 against the judgment of reversal dated 19.09.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, in Civil Appeal No.130 of 2010, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, was allowed; and the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon (Jind), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, was set aside.

RSA-3206-2015

Present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 against the judgment of reversal dated 19.09.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, in Civil Appeal No.130 of 2010, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, was allowed; and the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon (Jind), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, was set aside.

Both the above-said Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both appeals are arising out of common impugned order; and both appeals are between the same parties; and the facts, issues and dispute involved in both the appeals are identical.For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RSA-5524-2014 filed by defendants No.1 and 2.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein had filed a suit 'seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging, laying foundation, raising any kind of construction earth filling etc. and from making any kind of interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and Proforma defendant No.4 as owner over the plot measuring about 252 square yards comprised in khasra No.397 min (397/2 and 397/5) situated at Railway Road, Safidon and which is bounded as under:-

East:- 88' street

West:- 82' Shop and building of defendants No.1 & 2.

North:- 28' Railway Road.

South:- 26' street.

(hereinafter referred to as the suit land.)'

3.1. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendant No.4 (pro-forma respondent No.4 in the present appeal as well), were owners in possession of the suit land by way of private partition i.e. Bahmi Batwara dated 15.01.1989, mutation No.6753 and 6905, partly by way of mutual transfer, Tabadla, also through Bahmi Batwara Yaddast dated 22.8.1997 and through release deed No.3452 dated 28.3.2006, to the extent of their total 2/3rd share i.e. 255 square yards in which 1/3rd share had come to plaintiff No.3 by mutual transfer with his brother Umesh Aggarwal. It was further pleaded that defendant No.3 (appellant in connected RSA-3206-2015) had already sold his 1/3rd share (124 square yards) in the suit land to the defendants No.1 and 2 vide Sale Deed No.569 dated 15.07.1997, pursuant to which no part of the suit land was in ownership of defendant No.3 and therefore, he was not entitled to alienate land out of Khasra No.397. It was pleaded that in the above-said Sale Deeds of 1997, land of plaintiff No.3 has been mentioned on the eastern side of the sold plots, thereby clearly admitting ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Otherwise also, on