A suit for permanent injunction without a declaration of title is maintainable when the title is not disputed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 9 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 739 of 2023 BHAVUDDIN Versus SHAHBUDDIN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate for applicant.

Shri Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.

ORDER The Civil Revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vidisha in RCSA No.34/2022, by which an application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of a Hibanama. It is submitted that the suit without declaration of title is not maintainable and therefore the application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should have been allowed by the trial court.

3. Per contra, the revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for the Signature Not Verified respondent. It is submitted that in a case where the title is not in dispute, then a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction is maintainable.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is well-established principle of law that where the question of title is not in dispute, then the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction would be maintainable. The Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v.

M. Mallappa, reported in, 2021 (13) SCC 135 has held as under.

"13. The short question that falls for consideration before us is : Whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable?

14. The issue is no more res integra. The position has been crystallised by this Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [ Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy , (2008) 4 SCC 594 ] in para

21, which read thus : (SCC pp. 607-608)

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

(a) Where a cloud is raised over the 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 he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

Signature Not Verified (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar [Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202] ). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a