1. Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants for interference with possession of property. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28269
K. Babu, J
A.T. Velappan – Appellant
Versus
Saly Manoj – Respondent
RSA NO. 485 OF 2008
Important Points
In suits for permanent prohibitory injunction, 'lawful possession' is the determining factor rather than 'ownership'. Relief is granted where a legal right is established and threatened invasion is proven, provided no other equally efficacious remedy is available under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Specific Relief/Injunctions
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Specific Relief Act - Sections 38 and 41(h) - Permanent Prohibitory Injunction - Lawful possession - Cause of action - In a suit for permanent injunction, the touchstone for decision is "lawful possession" and not "ownership" (Para 24). A cause of action is a bundle of facts which, when combined with applicable law, gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant (Para 20). Where a legal right is established and there is evidence of a threatened invasion, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction provided the case is fit for the exercise of court's discretion and not barred by Section 41 of the Act (Paras 23 and 26).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent trespass upon 23 cents of land. The plaintiff claimed title via a sale deed and established possession through tax receipts and possession certificates. The defendants contended that the sale deed was a sham and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the entire extent of the property. While the Trial Court found the plaintiff in possession, it dismissed the suit for lack of cause of action. This was subsequently reversed by the First Appellate Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff had established lawful possession of the entire plaint schedule property. The evidence provided by the plaintiff and witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) regarding the defendants' actions, such as plucking coconuts and removing cadjans, established a sufficient cause of action and a threatened invasion of the plaintiff's legal rights.
Issues: The main issues were whether the First Appellate Court misconstrued the evidence regarding the cause of action and whether the relief sought was hit by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act due to the availability of an equally efficacious remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since lawful possession was concurrently found by the lower courts and a threatened invasion was evidenced, the requirements for a perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act were met. Furthermore, the suit was not barred under Section 41(h) as no other equally efficacious remedy existed for protecting the plaintiff's established legal right to possession.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants to prevent trespass upon 23 cents of land. The plaintiff claimed title via a sale deed and established possession through tax receipts and possession certificates. The defendants contended that the sale deed was a sham and that the plaintiff was not in possession of the entire extent of the property. While the Trial Court found the plaintiff in possession, it dismissed the suit for lack of cause of action. This was subsequently reversed by the First Appellate Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff had established lawful possession of the entire plaint schedule property. The evidence provided by the plaintiff and witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) regarding the defendants' actions, such as plucking coconuts and removing cadjans, established a sufficient cause of action and a threatened invasion of the plaintiff's legal rights.
Issues: The main issues were whether the First Appellate Court misconstrued the evidence regarding the cause of action and whether the relief sought was hit by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act due to the availability of an equally efficacious remedy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since lawful possession was concurrently found by the lower courts and a threatened invasion was evidenced, the requirements for a perpetual injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act were met. Furthermore, the suit was not barred under Section 41(h) as no other equally efficacious remedy existed for protecting the plaintiff's established legal right to possession.
Result: Second appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.G. Bindu, C.G. Ajitha
For the Respondents: E.M. Joseph
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.G. Bindu, C.G. Ajitha
For the Respondents: E.M. Joseph
Table of Contents
2. Defendants argued no cause of action and plaintiff had equally efficacious remedy, barring injunction under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act. (Para 5 , 6 , 14 , 18 )
3. First Appellate Court reversed trial court finding on cause of action, holding that plaintiff established cause of action. (Para 10 , 11 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. In a suit for permanent injunction, the touchstone is lawful possession, not ownership, and Section 38 prerequisites must be satisfied. (Para 24 , 25 )
5. Second appeal dismissed, upholding First Appellate Court's decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of plaintiff. (Para 26 )
6. What is the definition of cause of action in a civil suit?
Cause of action is a bundle of facts which, taken with the applicable law, gives a plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. (Para 20 )
7. What is the test for granting a permanent prohibitory injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act?
The prerequisites are a legal right, its violation or threatened invasion, existing right, fitness for discretion, and no bar under Section 41. (Para 23 , 25 )
8. In a suit for permanent injunction, is the determining factor ownership or possession?
The determining factor is lawful possession, not ownership, as held by the Supreme Court in Sunkamma v. S. Pushparaj. (Para 24 )
9. When is a suit for permanent injunction barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act?
It is barred when the plaintiff has an equally efficacious remedy other than approaching the civil court for the injunction. (Para 26 )
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 27.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.BABU, J.
----------------------------
R.S.A. No.485 of 2008
----------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
This Regular Second Appeal arose from the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 in A.S.No.42 of 2007 passed by the VI- Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The plaintiff in O.S. No.150 of 2006 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, was the appellant in A.S.No.42 of 2007. The defendants were the respondents.
2. The defendants preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court.
3. During the course of proceedings, appellant No.1 died. Consequently his legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 5.
4. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The plaint schedule property is 23 cents of land (9 Ares 31 Square Meters) in Re-Sy.No.49/2 in block No.18 of Manakunnam Village. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Late Sri.Thevan, the father of defendant No.1. Shri.Thevan alienated this property to Smt.Ambujakshi, who sold the same to Sri.K.V.Kuriakose as per sale deed No.592/1969. Sri.K.V.Kuriakose, executed Will No.38/1998 of SRO Tripunithura, by which the plaint schedule property was bequeathed in favour of his wife Thankamma Kuriakose. After the death of Sri.K.V.Kuriakose, Smt.Thankamma Kuriakose, acquired right in respect of the plaint schedule property. Smt.Thankamma Kuriakose sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as per sale deed No.639/1/05 of SRO Tripunithura. The defendants attempted to trespass upon the plaint schedule property.
5. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff, contending as follows: The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the plaint schedule property, is a sham document. The plaintiff has not obtained title or possession over the property. The defendants have no intention to trespass upon the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff acquired title and possession over only 20 cents of property from the predecessors of the 1st defendant. The defendants are residents of a 'Thuruthu' wherein the plaint schedule property is situated. The plaintiff owns the remaining properties in the 'Thuruthu'. Her attempt is to eject the defendants from the 'Thuruthu'. Therefore, she has no cause of action to institute the suit.
6. During the trial, on the side of plaintiff, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. DW1 was examined on the side of defendants.
7. After appreciating the rival contentions, based on the materials placed before the Court, the Trial Court recorded the following findings: (a) the plaintiff has established possession over the plaint schedule property (b) the plaintiff failed to establish the cause of action to seek relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.
8. Based on the finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the cause of action pleaded against the defendants, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
9. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.150/2006 before the District Court, Ernakulam in A.S. No.42/2007.
10. The First Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff has established possession over the plaint schedule property. The First Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action against the defendants for seeking a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for.
11. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2007 in A.S. No.42 of 2007 of the First Appellate Court, the defendants have approached this Court in this Second Appeal.
12. Heard Smt.C.G.Bindu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.E.M.Joseph, the learned counsel appear
