A suit for injunction against the true owner is not maintainable without specific performance relief and relies on valid evidence.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is by the defendant in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S No.473/2010.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiff contended that by a sale deed No.1726/2005 dated 19.04.2005, the plaint schedule property was sold to the defendant. Later an agreement was executed for re-conveyance of the property, provided that the defendant pays a sum of Rs.99,200/- within two months. Finding that there was an attempt on the part of the defendant to induct strangers into the property, the suit for injunction was filed. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that the suit is not maintainable and that once the property is sold to the defendant, the possession having been taken over by the defendant and that the mutation being effected, no right title and interest over the property vests with the plaintiff, entitling him to claim an injunction. It was further pointed out that the suit as such framed is not maintainable without a relief for specific performance being sought for. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A3 documents were produced and PW1 to PW3 were examined. On behalf of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B3 documents were produced and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 and C1(a) are report and the sketch submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction as prayed for and accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S No.32/2007 before the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, which was transferred to the Additional District Court -I, Thiruvananthapuram, and renumbered as A.S No.473/2010. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that he is entitled to the relief sought for and decreed the suit as prayed for with cost. Hence the present appeal.

3. On 10.11.2025, while admitting the appeal this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(a) Whether the suit for injunction simplicitor is maintained against the appellant, who is a true owner? (b) Whether the unregistered agreement of re- conveyance is acceptable in evidence, especially since the signature of the appellant is not found in the said agreement?

4. Heard Shri.G.S.Raghunath, the learned counsel for the appellant. Though notice was issued to the respondent and service being completed, no appearance for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the absence of any relief for specific performance, the suit is not maintainable. In support of his contention relied on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Moosa v. Moideen [2001 (1) KLT 183] . It is further pointed out that Ext.A2 is an unregistered agreement, where there is no signature of the appellant. In such circumstances, no right flows into the hands of the plaintiff. Even if, assuming that the plaintiff has got any right over the property, that must be necessarily enforced through a proper proceedings in the form of a suit for specific performance.

6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and also the records of the case.

7. It is pertinent to note that in a suit for injunction simplicitor which is against a true owner, not maintainable. That apart, no where in the plaint nor in the evidence adduced by the defendant, it is sho