The apex court of India in its recent decision reaffirmed the legal principle related to the question of title in a suit for injunction and upheld the Judgment of the High Court which set aside the decree of the trial court and held that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title was not tenable. The court reiterated the position in Anathula Sudhakar V. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 by quoting paragraph 21 of the said judgment:
“21. To summaries, 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 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 straight forward, 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 court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.”
It was made clear by the court that where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession and 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.
An appeal was filed by way of Special Leave Petition by one T V Ramakrishna Reddy against M Mallappa and another. The appellant in this case, filed a suit for granting perpetual injunction against the respondent No 1 in this case, restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Appellant claimed that he had purchased the suit property from one Shri K.P. Govinda Reddy and constructed a compound wall; and the defendants attempted to demolish the compound wall. The respondent no 2 (Bangalore Development Authority) claimed that Khata issued in the name of Appellant is only a revenue entry and he have no right of title or interest over the suit property. The first respondent claimed that he had purchased the suit property from one M.Shivalingaiah and the vendor of the appellant had no right, title and interest to sell the suit property. He further stated that after buying the property he had applied for reconveyance since the plot was under reconveyance scheme. He claimed that the compound wall was put up by him.
The trial court found all issues in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed accordingly. Aggrieved by this the first respondent filed an appeal in the High Court of Karnataka. The court observed that the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title was not tenable and hence the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside. Hence an appeal by way of Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellant.
The matter was taken up by the bench constituting Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai. The honorable judges had elaborately elucidated the present position regarding the matter in issue. The court reiterated the position in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 by quoting paragraph 21 of the said judgment. The court also referred to the judgment in Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh and another, (2019) 17 SCC 692 that “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, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction”.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the present case decided that the issue with regard to title can be decided only after the full-fledged trial on the basis of the evidence that would be led by the parties in support of their rival claims. Hence the appeal was dismissed without merit.
Read the complete judgment by clicking on the case title :- T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs M. Mallappa & anr [Civil Appeal No. 5577 of 2021]