A suit for permanent injunction is unmaintainable without a declaration of title when the plaintiff's title is in dispute.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 7 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 16 of 2024 PRASHANT PATHAK Versus SMT ROOPLATA PATHAK AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nirmal Sharma, Advocate for applicant.

Shri Manish Sharma, Advocate for respondents ORDER This civil revision, under section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the order dated 1/12/2023 passed by X Additional Judge to the Court of I Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior in RCSA No.490/2023 by which an application filed by applicant under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that respondents have filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading inter alia that House No.8/337 (New No. 32/241) is situated in Bahra Pandit Santar, Morar, District Gwalior. The part of the house shown in the plaint map with black ink is in the possession of defendant, whereas part of the house in green ink is in the possession of plaintiffs. The part marked as "A" is in possession of Sunita Namdeo who is the tenant of plaintiffs. It is the case of plaintiffs and defendant that they are legal representatives of late Madan Gopal Pathak. Madan Gopal Pathak had three sons namely Subhash Sharma, Ashok Sharma and Jugal Kishore Pathak. Ashok Sharma is residing in a different Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND city and has not visited the disputed property for last several years. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 (grandfather of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3) had purchased the aforesaid property by registered sale deed dated 9/9/1974 in the name of Subhash Sharma. The disputed part of the house is the portion which is in possession of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the sale deed was executed in respect of the entire property in the name of Subhash Sharma out of love and affection, whereas at the time of the execution of sale deed the plaintiffs and the family of the defendant were residing jointly. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 were also born in the disputed property and both of them also got married in the same property. During the lifetime of the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of defendant, no dispute took place. However, on 7/5/2023, the defendant had abused the wife of plaintiff No.3 and also extended a threat to vacate the premises and accordingly the wife of plaintiff No.3 had also made a written complaint to the police. When plaintiff No.1 discussed the matter with defendant, then he claimed that the house in dispute is in the name of his father and, therefore he can get the house vacated at any point of time. When plaintiff No.1 tried to pursue the defendant by informing that even plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3, as well as, the defendant were born in the said house and all of them were residing peacefully then defendant got annoyed and started scolding the plaintiff No.1 that she should bring his father from heaven. Accordingly, it was pleaded that defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiffs and accordingly the suit for permanent injunction was filed.

3. Applicant/ defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND the CPC for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued. It was further pleaded that plaintiffs have admitted that the sale deed in respect of suit house is in the name of the father of the defendant and therefore in absence of any prayer for declaration of title, the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction is not maintainable.

4. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs.

5. The trial Court by the impugned order has rejected the application by holding that since the plaintiffs have claimed that a threat was extended to them on 7/5/2023 that the defen