Person in Long-Settled Possession Can Seek Injunction Even Against Rightful Owner Without Declaration of Title: Andhra Pradesh High Court - 2025-09-03

High Court Upholds Injunction for Family in Long-Settled Possession, Affirms Right to Protection from Forcible Eviction

Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh - The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling on property law, has dismissed a second appeal filed by the State, thereby protecting a family's long-standing possession of 15 acres of land in Vizianagaram. Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao held that a person in long-settled possession is entitled to a permanent injunction to prevent interference, even from the rightful owner, and cannot be forcibly evicted without due process of law.

The court affirmed that a suit for a simple injunction (injunction simplicitor) is maintainable even if the defendant disputes the plaintiff's title, so long as the plaintiff can prove settled possession.

Case Background

The legal dispute dates back to 1994 when the family of the late Vakatipudi Tamma Rao (plaintiffs) filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the District Collector and the State (defendants). The plaintiffs claimed that Tamma Rao had purchased approximately 15 acres of land through a registered sale deed in 1962 and that the family had been in continuous and peaceful possession ever since.

The conflict arose when the State authorities, claiming the property was government 'banjar' land, attempted to demarcate it for distribution as house sites to the poor, thereby threatening the family's possession.

Both the trial court in 2000 and the first appellate court in 2006 ruled in favor of the family, granting the injunction. The State then escalated the matter to the High Court in a second appeal.

Arguments from Both Sides

The State's Arguments (Appellant): The government's counsel contended that the suit was flawed on several grounds:

* Maintainability: A suit for a simple injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiffs' title is in dispute. The plaintiffs should have filed a suit for a declaration of title.

* Jurisdiction: The Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, which should have been decided by revenue authorities under the Inams Act, 1956.

* Binding Nature of Prior Judgments: Earlier court decrees from 1964 and 1968, which recognized the family's rights, were not binding on the State as it was not a party to those proceedings.

The Family's Arguments (Respondents): The respondents' counsel argued that their claim was based on uninterrupted and settled possession for decades, supported by a registered sale deed, tax receipts, and an Advocate Commissioner's report confirming the existence of a garden and trees on the land. They maintained their right to protect this possession from any illegal interference.

High Court's Analysis and Key Findings

Justice Rao addressed three substantial questions of law raised by the State and delivered a decisive judgment.

1. On the Maintainability of an Injunction Suit: The court rejected the State's primary argument, clarifying the law on injunction simplicitor suits. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in

* Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh

*, the High Court noted:

> "A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff... The law is well settled that a person, who is in a long settled possession of a property, shall not be evicted by force except under due process of law."

The court found that the plaintiffs had successfully proven their long-settled possession through extensive oral and documentary evidence, thus making their suit for injunction perfectly maintainable.

2. On the Admissibility of Prior Judgments: While acknowledging that the State was not a party to the earlier lawsuits, the court explained that those judgments were still admissible under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act.

> "The law is well settled that a previous judgment not inter partes can be admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as a transaction in which the right to property was asserted and recognized."

These documents served as strong evidence supporting the family's long-standing claim and possession of the property.

3. On the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court: The court dismissed the contention that the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred. It held that when the relief sought is an injunction to prevent illegal interference with possession, the Civil Court is the competent forum. The ouster of a Civil Court's jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred, especially when the case revolves around protecting established possession rather than determining title under a special act.

Final Decision

The High Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. It concluded that the family was in long-settled possession and that the State's attempt to dispossess them without following due process was unlawful.

"If the defendants intend to evict the plaintiffs from out of the plaint schedule property, they have to proceed as per law by following due procedure and the defendants are not supposed to evict the plaintiffs forcibly," the judgment stated.

The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the permanent injunction in favor of the family. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that possession is a crucial right that courts will protect against high-handed or unlawful actions, ensuring that even a rightful owner must resort to legal channels to claim a property.