No Free Pass on Encroachment: HP High Court Slaps Down Injunction Bid Over Plaintiff's Tall Tales

In a ruling that underscores the courts' wariness of litigants who play fast and loose with facts, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed an appeal seeking demolition of an encroached structure. Justice Rakesh Kainthla ruled that even when a demarcation report confirms encroachment, a mandatory injunction isn't a rubber-stamp remedy—especially if the plaintiff has misled the court. The decision upholds lower courts' refusal to grant relief to the legal heirs of original plaintiff Het Ram against respondents Varinder and others in a decades-old property tussle in Solan district.

Roots of the Row: A Family Feud Turns to Court

The dispute simmered over 36.2 bighas of land in village Shillar, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan—Khata/Khatauni No. 22/27, kita-28, per 1992-93 Jamabandi records. Plaintiff Het Ram (now deceased) and pro forma defendants were joint owners. Respondents' predecessor, Musaddi Lal, became owner of Khasra No. 107/1 (6 biswa) via mutation under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in 1976.

Tensions boiled when respondents allegedly built a kitchen on Khasra No. 195/107 without demarcation. Het Ram claimed it happened in October 1998 during his absence, serving a notice in 1994 warning against construction. But cracks appeared: a 1994 notice (Ex. DX) already complained of a full house on Khasra 107/1 post-completion. Trial court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Kasauli, 2006) and District Judge Solan (2008) granted only prohibitory injunction, sparing tiny fragments (Khasra 195/107/2 and /3) held by respondents via 2003-04 demarcation by Atma Ram (PW2). Legal heirs appealed to the High Court in 2008.

Appellants Cry Foul, Respondents Point to Lies

Appellants' pitch , led by Senior Advocate Suneet Goel: Demarcation report (Ext. PW2/C) proves encroachment on suit land. Lower courts erred in denying mandatory injunction for demolition and possession. Appellate court failed to independently reassess evidence. Cited Sunder Singh vs. Roop Singh (HP HC, 2019) for injunction rights.

Respondents' retort , via Advocate Mohinder Verma: Construction dates to 1994 (per plaintiff's own notice and cross-exam admission). Suit for injunction, not possession, is discretionary. Plaintiff lied about 1998 timeline, didn't approach with clean hands, suit barred by estoppel, acquiescence, and non-joinder. Long possession validated by family compromise; injunction rightly withheld.

Peeling Back the Layers: Discretion Trumps Encroachment Proof

Justice Kainthla zeroed in on two substantial questions: (1) Can judgments stand despite demarcation showing encroachment? (2) Misreading of evidence?

Concurrent findings affirmed: Demarcation lawful, unchallenged. But plaintiff's 1998 kitchen claim crumbled against 1994 notice and admission—pure falsehood. Injunctions under Specific Relief Act Sections 36 (preventive discretion), 39 (mandatory to compel acts), and 41(i) (bar if conduct disentitles) are equitable, not absolute.

The court invoked Supreme Court wisdom: In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, a \"new creed of litigants\" shamelessly lies; courts must punish polluters of justice. Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 641) echoed: Suppress facts or fib? Petition tossed. Delhi HC's Awaneesh Chandra Jha (2022) added: Fraud voids gains ab initio.

Appellate court's affirmation needed no exhaustive rewrite ( Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari , 2001)—broad agreement sufficed. As media summaries note, \ "Mandatory Injunction Not Automatic Even If Encroachment Proved; Can Be Denied For Plaintiff's Unfair Conduct\" —capturing the equitable core.

Court's Cutting Quotes: Truth or Bust

  • On false claims : \ "The averment [1998 construction] is patently false because of the admission made by the plaintiff that construction was completed in the year 1994.\"
  • Discretion's bite : \ "No party can claim a relief of injunction as a matter of right, and the court has a discretion to refuse the grant of an injunction in suitable cases.\"
  • Litigants' peril : \ "A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice... is not entitled to any relief\" ( Dalip Singh ).
  • Fraud's fate : \ "A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out\" ( S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu via Rekha Sharad ).
  • Old possession : Courts below rightly noted \"possession was old,\" disentitling mandatory relief.

Gavel Falls: Appeal Tossed, Clean Hands Enforced

\ "The present appeal fails, and it is dismissed.\" No demolition ordered; prohibitory injunction stands, protecting respondents' long-held fragments.

This sets a precedent: Encroachers may keep footing if plaintiffs fib—fortifying courts against \"unclean hands.\" Future property suits demand precision; expect stricter scrutiny on pleadings in Himachal and beyond, curbing abuse in tenancy-derived ownership spats.