Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6316
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ALOK AWASTHI, J
LAXMAN PATIDAR AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
VIKARAM BAI – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 2544 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Aditya Verma
For the Respondents: Shri Vikas Singh Parihar, Shri Lakhan Singh Panwar
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining the status quo during litigation, highlighting that the vacating of a temporary injunction must be supported by strong evidence.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Temporary injunctions - Purpose is to maintain status quo and prevent irreparable loss during litigation - Appellate Court erred in vacating temporary injunction without sufficient evidence proving ownership. (Paras 9, 10, 16)
(B) Possession vs. Title - The principle of 'possession follows title' is rebuttable, emphasizing the need for proof of ownership - The court found that both parties provided documents of ownership, but vacating the injunction was deemed perverse as the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo. (Paras 11-15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners established a suit for title and injunction against the Respondent who commenced construction on the petitioner's property without permission, leading to a stay.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's decision to vacate the stay was set aside, reinforcing the trial court's order to maintain the status quo.
Issues: The court addressed whether the injunction was properly vacated based on the presented evidence of ownership and possession.
Ratio Decidendi: Principles governing the issuance of temporary injunctions, focused on irreparable loss and maintaining status quo, were applied.
Result: The miscellaneous petition succeeds and the appellate court's judgment is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners allege unauthorized construction by respondent on disputed land. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal standard for granting temporary injunctions includes evaluation of harm and balance of convenience. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. 'possession follows title' is a rebuttable presumption requiring proof of ownership. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court asserts that mere claims of ownership without evidence do not justify blocking construction. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. appellate court's decision was considered perverse; trial court's order reinstated to maintain status quo. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Dharmpuri, District - Dhar in RCS No.31A/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been allowed and the stay granted in favour of the petitioner has been vacated.
2. The case of the petitioner/defendant in nutshell is that, the residential house of petitioners/plaintiffs is built on the northern ridge of village Sunderel, Tehsil Dharampuri, District Dhar and to the south of his house, there is disputed land measuring 0.0630 and 0.0630, total area 0.126 hectare, on which towards the land survey No. 117/1 and 117/2 owned and possessed by the petitioners/plaintiffs , a 63 ft x 35 ft old mud fence was built, which has collapsed due to being dilapidated, and on about 63 ft x 17 ft portion (disputed place) on the south side of the said fence, a thatched hut of the plaintiffs was built, which is currently broken and has been converted into a plot of land at the spot. The hut constructed by the plaintiffs/petitioners at the disputed site was given to the respondent/defendant for use to store agricultural goods about 3 years ago, but it was converted into a disputed site as it was broken during the customary week of July. The respondent/defendant started digging pits to carry out permanent construction work at the disputed site without the prior permission of the petitioners/plaintiffs and he was demanded to be stopped. Despite an application filed by the petitioner no.1/plaintiff on 18.07.2024 in this regard, the respondent/defendant did not stop the construction work. It is further alleged that the defendant/respondent threatened the petitioner to kill.
3. The Petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title over disputed place and for restraining the Respondent from raising any illegal construction. Respondent/defendant, filed his Written Statement and refuted to the averments of the plaint. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the issues. At present the suit is at the stage of Plaintiff Evidence. Petitioners/plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 R/w Section 151 of CPC , 1908 for injuncting the respondent/defendant from doing construction at their land which was allowed by the trial Court and the temporary injunction was granted in petitioners/plaintiffs' favour by order dated 12.09.2025. Being crestfallen with the aforesaid order, respondent/defendant filed an appeal before appellate Court. Appellate court vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in the Misc. Civil appeal (MCA 05/2024) vacated the temporary injunction/ stay which was granted in the favour of petitioners/plaintiffs. Hence being aggrieved, petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this miscellaneous petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners/plaintiffs have right and possession over the suit property, ancestral house situated in village Sundrel Tehsil Dharampuri, (admeasuring 0.126 hect.), which they had given to the respondent/defendant about 3 years ago for keeping their agricultural goods, when the said hut got broken, the respondent/defendant, without prior permission of the petitioners/plaintiffs, started digging pits for carrying out permanent construction on said place. Thus the Petitioners/plaintiffs institu
