The suit in OS No.25297/2016 is filed by the 1st

respondent and another for directing the defendant to quit,

vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule `C'

and `D' premises by way of mandatory injunction. The

defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with

Section 151 of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that

injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner in respect of

the joint family properties, and in the absence of prayer for

possession, the suit is hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act.

Sri B V Shankaranarayana Rao, learned Senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner's counsel submits that the

suit for mandatory injunction against the co-owner in respect of

the joint family properties is not maintainable. He further

- 3 -

submits that the suit for bare mandatory injunction without

seeking the relief of possession is not maintainable as specified

under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. He further submits

that a comprehensive suit for partition and possession of the

subject property is pending consideration between the parties

and the subsequent suit filed for mandatory injunction is not

maintainable. In support, he places reliance on the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar -

vs- P Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and others ((2008) 4 SCC

594) wherein at para-21 has held as follows:

"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

- 4 -

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.

(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 question of title, in a

suit for injunction. Even where there are

necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter

involves complicated questions of fact and law

relating to title, the court will relegate the

parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive

suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding

the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) Where there are necessary pleadings

regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to

title on which parties lead evidence, if the

matter involved is simple and straightforward,

the court may decide upon the issue regarding

title, even in a suit for injunction. But such

cases, are the exception to the normal rule that

question of title will not be decided in suits for

injunction. But persons having clear title and

possession suing for injunction, should not be

driven to the costlier and more cumbersome

remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because

some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes

a claim or tries to encroach upon his property.

The cour