Permanent Injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a person in unlawful possession

Citation : Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased), Civil Appeal No. 1382 Of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : March 03, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India

Corum: M.R. Shah, J.

Background

The dispute is with respect to the land bearing Revenue Survey No.49 ad-measuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas situated at the village Mahadeviya, District Deesa. The husband of the original plaintiff had executed a Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 in favour of the appellant herein (original defendant) by which he sold his agricultural land in question. On the basis of the sale deed, the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated in the Revenue record in the year 1976 itself.

In the year 1999, the husband of the original plaintiff, who executed the registered sale deed died. That after a period of approximately 22 years, respondent No.1 herein (original plaintiff) filed a suit for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 and for a declaration that the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 is bogus and not binding to the plaintiff. While praying for the substantive relief of declaration that the aforesaid sale deed is not binding on her, the plaintiff also prayed for return of the land ad- measuring 1-0 guntha, which even according to the plaintiff was in possession of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction with respect to the entire agricultural land ad- measuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas.

The trial court declined to grant the relief of cancellation of the sale deed and declaration but believed the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land to the extent of 5 acers and 15 gunthas of land and accordingly granted the relief of permanent injunction.

On appeal filed by the (original defendant), the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has observed that as relief for permanent injunction, by the plaintiff can be said to be a substantive relief, therefore, when the plaintiff is found to be in possession of 5 acres and 15 gunthas of land, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permeant injunction for protecting her possession. 

Judgment

On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial court refused to pass the decree for cancellation of the registered sale deed and refused to grant a declaration as prayed. Therefore, so far as on the aspect of title of the land in question is concerned, the plaintiff lost. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held that the husband of the plaintiff executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 for a value consideration. The judgment and order passed by the trial court refusing to grant the decree of cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration has attained finality. This is because no appeal was filed by the plaintiff.

Once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant – the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected even if as per her claim, she has been in possession of the property.

From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not properly appreciated the distinction between a substantive relief and a consequential relief. The High Court has observed that in the instant case the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be a substantive relief, which is clearly an erroneous view. It is to be noted that the main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and declaration and the prayer of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from disturbing her possession can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession. If that be so, in the present case, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief as observed and held by the High Court. Therefore, once the plaintiff has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale deed and failed to get any declaratory relief, and as observed hereinabove, relief of injunction can be said to be a consequential relief.

An injunction is a consequential relief and 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 further relief. Whether the further relief claimed has, in a particular case as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted. Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law.

The plaintiff had filed the suit claiming inter-alia "lawful possession" of the disputed property. But having failed to get any declaratory relief and the defendant No.1 held to be a true and absolute owner on the basis of the registered sale deed on payment of full sale consideration, the plaintiff’s possession cannot be said to be “lawful possession”. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner in the instant case.