Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6108
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
KAILASH NARAYAN UPMANYU (DELETED) THROUGH LRS RAMPRAKASH VERMA – Appellant
Versus
ARYA SAMAJ D.A.V. PRABANDHKARINI SAMITI MORAR GWALIOR – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL No. 262 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Gupta, Mr. Saket Sharma
For the Respondents:
Possession grants rights that can outweigh claims of ownership under Indian law, reinforcing the court's decision to issue a permanent injunction based on possession.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Appellant claimed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property but failed to support claims with evidence - Courts affirmed that possession is respected under Indian law, granting a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's operation. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Permanent injunction - The court noted that even in absence of title, possession is sufficient to grant an injunction. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff claimed declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant, asserting ownership and the right to operate a school without interference. Defendants denied membership and authority of the plaintiff's representative, claiming interference with property rights.
Findings of Court:
Courts below confirmed that despite lack of title, the plaintiff was in possession and entitled to protection from interference.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim to ownership and whether the injunction was warranted given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that possession grants a right to enjoyment, and without proving ownership, the defendant cannot disrupt the plaintiff's activities. Both courts correctly upheld the injunction on the basis of possession over title.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff claims ownership and seeks injunction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 24 OF JULY, 2025 SECOND APPEAL No. 262 of 2016 KAILASH NARAYAN UPMANYU (DELETED) THROUGH LRS RAMPRAKASH VERMA Versus ARYA SAMAJ D.A.V. PRABANDHKARINI SAMITI MORAR GWALIOR AND OTHERS Appearance:
Mr. N.K. Gupta - Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Saket Sharma -
Advocate for appellant.
JUDGMENT This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against judgment and decree dated 22.03.2016 passed by Sixth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 30A/2016, as well as judgment and decree dated 25.02.2015 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Class-
II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 13A/2012.
2. Appellant is the defendant who has lost his case from both the Courts below.
3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that plaintiff is a registered society and by resolution dated 16.04.2007, President of the Society has been authorized to institute the legal proceedings. President of the Society had filed W.P. No.
Signature Not Verified
1286/2001, which was allowed by order dated 21.08.2001, and State Government was directed to hold election within a period of three months. Accordingly, on 03.1.2001, elections were conducted. On 14.10.2002, Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, also issued the list of elected office bearers. It was the case of plaintiff that defendants are not the members of plaintiff-society, but they are interfering with the peaceful working of elected body for which they have no legal right. Plaintiff is running a school, and is in possession of property in dispute. Although defendants are not the general members of the society, still they are obstructing in the peaceful operation of the school management. On 13.04.2007, defendants had also caused undue interference in the examination of students. Accordingly, suit was filed to declare that plaintiff-society is the owner of property in dispute, and permanent injunction be issued against defendants, thereby restraining them from entering in the suit premises, as well as from interfering with the working of the plaintiff-society.
4. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. It was pleaded that Raghunath Singh is neither the President of the Society nor has any authority to file any suit on behalf of the Society. Since defendants were not made party to the writ petition, therefore, any order passed by the Writ Court is not binding on the defendants. It was denied that on 03.01.2001, Administrator and General Manager, District Industry and Business Department, Gwalior, had conducted the election. Even if any election had taken place, still it was done in a forged manner, and accordingly, plaintiff does not get the benefit of the same. It was claimed that Signature Not Verified Raghunath Singh is not a member of Arya Samaj D.A.V. Committee, and therefore, he cannot be elected as President. By giving false information, Raghunath Singh has got himself elected as President, and even otherwise, after three years of the election, tenure of elected body has come to an end. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 further claimed that property originally belongs to Arya Samaj Mandir. It was denied that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are illegally causing interference in the operation of the school. No permission has been granted either by Arya Samaj Mandir, Morar, or by Arya Samaj Mandir Committee, Bhopal, to the plaintiff, and therefore, possession of plaintiff over the property in dispute belonging to the temple was also denied. It was claimed that plaintiff has also alleged that Arya Samaj Mandir, Morar is causing interference in the operation of the school, and therefore, it was pleaded that Arya Samaj Mandir,
