Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah, JJ.
A. Subramanian & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
R. Pannerselvam – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.9472 of 2010
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Injunction – Grant of – Plaintiff in his plaint claimed title and possession and sought restraining defendants from disturbing plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit property – Trial court found that plaintiff has proved his right over property as well as possession, he was entitled for decree of injunction – Defendants are not in possession of suit property – High Court has also rightly observed that plaintiff’s possession is based on admission of defendant himself made in suit – It is a common principle of law that even trespasser who is in established possession of property could obtain injunction – However, matter would be different if plaintiff himself elaborates in plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief – Plaintiff has not narrated anything about title dispute – Principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable to facts of present case – High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that suit filed by plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering into title of plaintiff in facts of present case specially in view of previous litigation which was initiated at instance of defendant No.1 where he lost suit for declaration and recovery of possession of same property – No error in judgment of High Court allowing second appeal filed by plaintiff by setting aside judgment of First Appellate Court and restoring that of trial court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 21, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed by the defendants in civil suit challenging the judgment dated 28.04.2009 of Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.39 of 2009 by which judgment the High Court had allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.11.2008 in A.S. No.172 of 2005 and restoring judgment dated 06.02.2004 in O.S.No.188 of 2002 of trial court decreeing the suit.
Findings of Court:
High Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute obviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1 failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly observed that principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts of present case.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This appeal has been filed by the defendants in the civil suit challenging the judgment dated 28.04.2009 of Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.39 of 2009 by which judgment the High Court had allowed the second appeal of the plaintiff setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 26.11.2008 in A.S. No.172 of 2005 and restoring the judgment dated 06.02.2004 in O.S.No.188 of 2002 of the trial court decreeing the suit.
2. Parties shall be referred to as referred in the Original Suit. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are :
The plaintiff, R. Pannerselvam, who is the respondent in this appeal, filed O.S. No.188 of 2002 in the Court of District Munsif, Namakkal praying for permanent injunction interdicting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The suit property was measuring 1777-1/2 sq.ft. comprising in Survey No.172/1 situated at Kalappanaickenpatti Village. Plaintiff’s case in the suit was that suit property originally belonged to one Dhasi Naidu son of Thalama Naidu who went to Sri Lanka as a Farm Labour and died at Sri Lanka. The son of Dhasi Naidu, Krishnasamy Naidu came to India in 1981 and entrusted the suit property and other properties to one Ghani Sahib, who had been managing and enjoying the properties.
3. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property by registered deed on 16.07.2001 for a valid consideration from the descendants of Dhasi Naidu. The plaintiff’s further case was that the first defendant was formerly military serviceman, and the second defendant who was son-in-law of the first defendant, working as constable in police department, attempted to disturb the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed. The documents filed along with the plaint were power of attorney executed by legal heirs of Dhasi Naidu dated 22.05.2001, sale deed dated 16.07.2001 and sale deed dated 14.03.1946 in favour of Dhasi Naidu and house tax receipt dated 27.02.2001.
4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement refuting the claim of the plaintiff; defendant admitted that suit property belonged to Dhasi Naidu. The defendant pleaded that registered sale deed dated 16.07.2001 itself is a fabricated and forged one. So called legal heirs-descendants of Dhasi Naidu as alleged in sale deed are fictious and are not true legal heirs of the said Dhasi Naidu. The title of the suit property is itself questionable, the plaintiff along with Ghani Sahib has fabricated two special powers and plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. with the said documents had filed suit. The defendants in the written statement had set up the claim that Dhasi Naidu’s son Sanjeevi Naidu had entrusted the suit property and other properties to one P. Rangaraju Naidu by a registered power of attorney, who later died, leaving behind his only legal heir Mrs. Arjuna Devi, who died leaving behind her daughters, Nalanda, Indira and Gunabarathi. Defendant No.1 on behalf of her three daughters filed a suit against the Ghani Sahib questioning his tenancy which suit was dismissed and had been taken in appeal being A.S.No.297 of 1994.
5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Defendant examined DW.1 to DW.6. Plaintiff filed seven exhibits. The trial court framed the following three issues:
“(a) Is the permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is available to him?
(b) Is the statement of the defendants that the plaintiff is not the real owner of the suit property correct?
(c) What are the other reliefs available to the plaintiff?
6. The trial court held that power of attorney dated 22.05.2001 was prepared at Sri Lanka and registered at Namakkal Sub-Registrar’s office. The documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff are Exhibits PW1 and PW2. The trial court held that the plaintiff has right over the property, the possession of plaintiff was also found proved. The trial court d
(1) Possession is good against all but true owner.(2) Plaintiff who has proved his right over property as well as possession over suit property, he is entitled for decree of injunction.(3) Even tresp....
The law in India accords with the jurisprudential thought as propounded by Salmond, respecting possession even if there is no title to support it. Possession can only be resumed by the true owner in ....
Question of title can be looked into in a suit for injunction unless same is very complicated – A person who is in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
(1) Second appeal – Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases will emerge from facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait-jacket formula.(2) Second a....
The plaintiff, having lost the case on title dispute, was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner.
(1) Injunction is a consequential relief – In a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a furth....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
