A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable in cases of possession interference without title disputes.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 15 OF JULY, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 287 of 2020 RAJKUMAR PALIWAL Versus SMT. SANDHYA PALIWAL Appearance:

Mr. Prashant Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

None for respondent.

ORDER This civil revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 10.11.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sironj, District Vidisha in RCSA No. 19/2020, by which application filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that she is the owner of Shop No. 141. Husband of plaintiff, namely, Sanjeev Paliwal is the real brother of defendant. Shop in question was sold to her husband by Ramesh, who is the cousin brother of husband of petitioner, and plaintiff became the owner and in possession of said shop by virtue of sale deed dated 11.03.2019. It was alleged that defendant, by forging the signatures of her husband, has got his name mutated in the records of municipal council. Accordingly, plaintiff has lodged an FIR against respondent in Police Station - Sironj. S.T. No. 119/2015 is pending against defendant. Thereafter, property was once again mutated in the name of husband of plaintiff. Defendant has also filed an appeal against the said order, but the appeal Signature Not Verified was dismissed by order dated 30.05.2018. Since husband of plaintiff is heart patient, therefore, he is not in a position to take care of his shop, therefore, shop in question was given by her husband to plaintiff, and since 11.03.2019, plaintiff is in possession of property in dispute. It was alleged that in order to pressurize the plaintiff, defendant keeps his belongings in front of the shop, as a result, business of plaintiff gets adversely affected. Although plaintiff had objected to the conduct of defendant, but he deliberately keeps his goods in front of shop of plaintiff. In order to get rid of misdeeds of defendant, plaintiff constructed an obstruction between the shop of plaintiff and defendant. However, defendant was trying to remove the obstruction. Ultimately, in the midnight of 28.06.2020, iron box and iron mesh were stolen, and FIR was also lodged in that regard.

Accordingly, suit was filed for permanent injunction.

3. Petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on two points, i.e., (i) a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction is not maintainable in absence of declaration of title, and (ii) suit has not been properly valued. By impugned order dated 10.11.2020, application has been rejected on both the grounds.

4. Challenging the order passed by Court below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that suit simpliciter for permanent injunction is not maintainable in absence of declaration of title and it is true that it is the prerogative of plaintiff to value the suit, but valuation cannot be arbitrary.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

6. In order to adjudicate application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC , Court is only required to consider plaint averments. Defence of defendant cannot be considered. A suit simpliciter for permanent injunction is maintainable where title Signature Not Verified is not in dispute.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy , reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 , has held as under:-

"21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under :

(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but