Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy – Appellant
Versus
M. Mallappa & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5577 of 2021 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10621 of 2020]
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Injunction – Suit for Perpetual Injunction – Apprehended demolition of compound wall by defendant – Appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff – Where plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under cloud, suit for injunction could be decided with reference to finding on possession – If matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, court will relegate parties to remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction – Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if matter involved is simple and straightforward, court may decide upon issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction – However, such cases are exception to normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction – In present case, question involved is one which requires adjudication after evidence is led and questions of fact and law are decided – Suit for mere injunction does not lie only when defendant raises genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises cloud over title of plaintiff – It cannot be said at this stage that dispute raised by defendant No.2 with regard to title is not genuine nor can it be said that title of plaintiff-appellant over suit property is free from cloud – Issue with regard to title can be decided only after full-fledged trial on the basis of evidence that would be led by parties in support of their rival claims – No reason to interfere with judgment and order passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 15, 16, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Short question that falls for consideration is whether the learned single Judge of the High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title, as filed by the plaintiff, was not maintainable? Single judge of the Karnataka High Court found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title was not tenable and as such, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree.
Findings of Court:
This is not a case where the plaintiff-appellant can be said to have a clear title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on plaintiff-appellant’s title over the suit property. The question involved is one which requires adjudication after evidence is led and questions of fact and law are decided.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A suit for a mere injunction is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute regarding the title or creates a cloud over the plaintiff's title. In such cases, the court cannot decide the issue solely on the basis of possession or simple facts (!) (!) .
The determination of title is a complex issue that can only be conclusively decided after a full-fledged trial based on evidence led by the parties. If the matter involves complicated questions of law and fact relating to ownership, the court is expected to refer the parties to a comprehensive suit for declaration of title rather than deciding the issue in a suit for injunction (!) (!) .
In cases where the plaintiff's title is not under dispute or clouded, and the possession is lawful, the court may decide the issue of possession and related injunctions without delving into title, provided the facts are straightforward. However, such cases are exceptions and not the norm (!) .
The court emphasizes that the question of title should not normally be decided in suits for injunction unless there are clear pleadings and issues relating to title, and the matter is simple enough for the court to decide upon the issue without a full declaration suit (!) .
The relevant legal principle is that if the dispute involves complicated questions of fact and law regarding ownership, the parties should be relegated to a proper suit for declaration of title, rather than seeking relief solely through an injunction (!) .
The case under discussion involved a dispute where the plaintiff claimed ownership based on a sale deed, but the defendant challenged this claim, asserting ownership through another sale deed and alleging fabricated documents. The court found that the dispute over title was genuine and required adjudication after evidence was led, thus making a simple suit for injunction inappropriate (!) .
The court reaffirmed that the existence of a genuine dispute over title prevents the maintenance of a suit solely for injunction, and the matter must be resolved through a comprehensive declaration of ownership (!) .
The court also noted that entries made in official records, such as municipal or revenue records, are fiscal entries and do not by themselves establish or extinguish ownership rights. Such entries can be corrected or challenged only through proper legal proceedings, and the dispute over ownership should be settled in a civil court (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores that in property disputes involving questions of ownership, the courts should avoid deciding the title in a suit for injunction unless the facts are clear and straightforward. Otherwise, the parties should be directed to initiate a proper suit for declaration of title to resolve the dispute conclusively (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By the present appeal, the appellant-plaintiff challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 19.3.2020 in R.F.A. No. 123 of 2012 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 – M. Mallappa (defendant No.2) herein.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under :
The plaintiff-appellant before this Court filed a suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. His case is that he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Shri K.P. Govinda Reddy through registered sale deed dated 13.4.1992 and thereafter he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to him, he has constructed compound wall of 8 ft. height with hallow bricks. His further case is that he has constructed a house on the said plot and being a civil contractor, is using the same for storing building materials. It is his further case that he has taken loan by depositing the title deed of the suit property. It is his further case that since the defendants attempted to demolish the compound wall and did not pay heed to the plaintiff’s request, he was required to file a suit.
The claim of the plaintiff-appellant is resisted by defendant No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) – The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA’) by filing written statement. It is the defendant No.1’s case that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. It is its further case that the khata issued in the name of the plaintiff-appellant is only a revenue entry and does not confer any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff-appellant over the suit property.
The defendant No.2-M. Mallappa (respondent No.1 herein) also resisted the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. It is his case that he had purchased the suit property through registered sale-deed dated 5.4.1984 from one M. Shivalingaiah. It is his case that since the date of purchase, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is his further case that the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant had no right, title and interest to sell the suit schedule property in favour the plaintiff. It is his case that entire Survey No.37 admeasuring 1 acre 29 guntas belonged to undivided family of M. Shivalingaiah and upon partition, the entire land in the said Survey number came to be allotted to the share of M. Shivalingaiah. It is his case that M. Shivalingaiah had sold plots in the said Survey number to different persons and the suit property was sold to him. It is his further case that he had made an application to B.D.A. for reconveyance since the plot was under reconveyance scheme. It is his case that compound wall was put up by him.
On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned trial judge framed the following issues :
2. Does he prove this alleged interference by the defendants?
3. Is he entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against defendants?”
All the issues came to be answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the suit came to be decreed as prayed for.
Being aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 i.e. respondent No.1 herein filed Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru.
The learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title was not tenable and as such, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree.
Being aggrieved
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
