Back
2006 Supreme(All) 2750
2011 (87) ALR 763
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
MASURIA DEEN and others – Appellant
Versus
Smt. AMRITI and another – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 520 of 1984
Decided on : October 10, 2006
Counsel for the Petitioners: Amar Nath Mishra.
Counsel for the Respondents: LM. Singh, Ajay Yadav and R.K. Singh.
A person in possession of a property is not entitled to injunction against the true owner of the property.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Specific Relief Act - [Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act] - The court decided on the entitlement of a trespasser to an injunction against the rightful owner. The court held that a person in possession of a property is not entitled to injunction against the true owner of the property. The decree for injunction could not be passed in favor of a trespasser against the rightful owner.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of a disputed house. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for permanent injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court held that the defendants had ownership and possession over the disputed house, while the Lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunction to protect their peaceful possession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the injunction claimed. Other issues included ownership and possession of the disputed property, jurisdiction of the Court, court fee, principles of estoppel and acquiescence, and res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person in possession of a property is not entitled to injunction against the true owner of the property. The Lower Appellate Court's decision to grant injunction to the plaintiffs was contrary to the correct legal position.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Lower Appellate Court for deciding the civil appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
S.P. MEHROTRA, J. –
The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1984 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad (Lower Appellate Court) whereby Civil Appeal No. 281 of 1979, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein, was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, Allahabad (Trial Court) dated 9.4.1979 was set aside, and the Original Suit No.5 of 1975, filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein, was decreed.
2. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants herein in respect of a House shown by the letters Aa, Ba,. Sa, Da in the plaint map. The said house has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed house". The details in regard to the said disputed house were given at the foot of the plaint of the said suit.
3. The said suit was registered as Original Suit No.5 of 1974.
4. It was, inter alia, alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents herein in the said suit that Daya Ram had been the owner of the disputed house; and .that the disputed house was got built by the ancestors of the said Daya Ram; and that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein (Smt. Amriti) was the wife of the said Daya Ram, and their marriage had taken place 13 years back; and that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 herein (Smt Prema) was the real sister of the said Daya Ram; and that the said Daya Ram died on 21.5.1972; and that the said Daya Ram and the plaintiff-respondent No.; 1 (Smt. Amriti) had no issue, and as such, on the death of the said Daya Ram, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (Smt. Amriti) and the plaintiff-respondent No.2 (Smt. Prema) inherited the disputed house and they had been living in the disputed house; and that the defendants-appellants had neither any right nor possession over the disputed house in any manner, but out or ill-will, the defendants-appellants were threatening to forcibly take possession of the disputed house and evict the plaintiffs-respondents from the disputed house; and that in the circumstances, it was necessary that the defendants-appellants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the disputed house.
5. It was, inter alia, prayed in the said suit that permanent injunction be issued against the defendants-appellants restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the disputed house.
6. The defendants-appellants contested the said suit and filed their joint written statement.
7. It was, inter alia, stated in the said written statement that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (Smt. Amriti) was not the widow of the said Daya Ram; and that the said Daya Ram was bachelor and was a patient of T.B.; and that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 (Smt. Amriti) had never resided in the village in question, namely Paigambar Pur, nor was she ever married to the said Daya Ram; and that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 (Smt. Prema) was not the sister of the said Daya Ram; and that the said Daya Ram was the only issue of his parents; and that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 (Smt. Prema) was the wife of Doodh Nath and was resident of village Deoria, Tehsil Sora on, Allahabad; and that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 (Smt. Prema) had never resided in the village in question, namely Paigambar Pur.
8. It was, Inter alia, further stated in the said written statement that the disputed house was never in occupation of the said Daya Ram, and the said Daya Ram was not the owner of the disputed house; and that the house of the said Daya Ram was situated in the eastern side of the disputed house; and that the house of the said Daya Ram had fallen-down and was in the shape of Khandhar; and that the house of the said Daya Ram was situated in between the disputed house and the house of Beni Madho; and that the Khandhar of the house of the said Daya Ram was also in possession of the defendants-appellants.
9. It was,
