2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 38862

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Ravi V Hosmani, J
M V Subramanya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
RSA No. 1164 of 2012

A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when a plaintiff's title is under a cloud and possession is disputed, without a prayer for declaration. Title must be established to prove lawful possession, and concurrent factual findings regarding such title and possession are typically non-reviewable in second appeal.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Scope of - Concurrent findings of fact - Interference by the High Court in a second appeal is permissible only if the judgment is vitiated by perversity, is based on surmises, or misreads material evidence on record - An order should not be interfered with simply because another view is possible. (Paras 29, 47, 81)

(B) Injunction - Suit for - Permanent injunction against dispossession - Where a cloud is cast over the title of the plaintiff and the subject property is not in the plaintiff's possession, a suit for declaration of title and possession is the necessary legal remedy - Abandoning the relief of declaration in a suit for injunction does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree, particularly when the defendants specifically contest the title and assert legal possession acquired through a past auction sale. (Paras 34, 52, 77)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, legal representatives of the original owner, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land. The property had been subjected to a public auction decades prior to the suit due to a default in the payment of government revenue dues. The auction sale was confirmed, and possession was purportedly delivered to the auction purchaser. The appellants, after several decades of litigation before revenue authorities and in various courts, challenged the legality of the auction, claiming they remained in continuous possession. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to establish their possession and that the suit was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration given the disputed status of the property.

Findings of Court:
The High Court affirmed that the lower courts' concurrent findings regarding the lack of possession and the legitimacy of the auction sale were well-founded and supported by the evidence. The court noted that the documentary evidence, including revenue records and previous judicial orders, clearly demonstrated that the title had validly passed via the auction process, and the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove lawful possession.

Issues: The main issues were whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff’s title is under a cloud and the property is claimed by the defendant via an auction sale, and whether the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts were based on a correct appreciation of evidence or were perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a substantial cloud is cast over a plaintiff's title and the property involves complicated factual possession issues, a court is not required to grant a permanent injunction solely based on the weakness of the defendant's case. Instead, the plaintiff must prove title and lawful possession. Findings based on consistent evidence of a confirmed auction and subsequent entries in revenue records, which have not been effectively rebutted, cannot be overturned in a regular second appeal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.