A suit for perpetual injunction is not maintainable without a declaration of title when there exists a cloud over the plaintiff's ownership.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Present second appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2023 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar in O.S. No.357 of 2012 “Smt. Tirla Devi vs. Sukhbir and another” and the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2025 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No.24 of 2023, whereby the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs for a decree of perpetual injunction was dismissed and the appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs claim ownership over the suit property, Khasra No. 129, area 0.2650 hectares, situated at Village Khijarpur Kalanjara, Tehsil and District Haridwar on the basis of a registered Will executed in their favour by their mother Smt. Chandrabalia. They allege that the respondents/ defendants were attempting to interfere with their peaceful possession, therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S. No.357 of 2012 against the respondents /defendants seeking a decree of perpetual injunction.

3. Some undisputed facts of the case are that the suit property is an agricultural land, which originally belonged to Late Mool Chand; after death of Mool Chand, Dhoom Singh, being his son and legal heir, was recorded as Bhumidhar in revenue records; after death of Dhoom Singh, name of appellants/plaintiffs’ mother Smt. Chandrabalia got recorded in revenue records in PK11 in the year 1992; thereafter, on 09.12.2009, names of the present respondents/defendants (wife and son of Late Dhoom Singh) were mutated; this mutation was, however, later stayed on 24.12.2012, based on a restoration application filed by the appellants. It is also undisputed that on the date of institution of O.S. No.357 of 2012, names of respondents/defendants were recorded in revenue records and that the names of appellants/appellants, who are married daughter of Late Smt. Chandrabalia, were never recorded in the revenue records.

4. The facts, as narrated above, depicts that mutation proceedings are pending consideration with respect to recording the name of Smt. Chandrabaliya vis- à-vis defendant nos.1 and 2 whereas names of appellants /plaintiffs were never recorded in the revenue record. The appellants/plaintiffs are claiming their right and title over the suit property on the basis of a Will, executed by their mother Late Smt. Chandrabalia, and the said fact that whether the name of Late Smt. Chandrabalia was rightly recorded or not, in the revenue record, is still to be adjudicated.

5. The Learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, concurrently held that since the land in question is agricultural in nature and the title is disputed, the civil court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Instead, the appropriate forum to determine the rights and title over the disputed property lies with the revenue court. It was further held that, as the parties are not recorded as Bhumidars over the disputed property, it is mandatory for them to file a suit for declaration of title before the competent revenue authority.

6. The question that now arises for consideration before this Court is whether the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court; holding that a suit simpliciter for perpetual injunction, filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, without seeking declaration of title, would be maintainable when there exists a cloud over the appellants/plaintiffs’ title to the suit property; are legally justified or not?

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that appellants/plaintiffs are in possess