Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the successors of the original plaintiff, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court which had denied the relief of permanent injunction. The Court held that when the plaintiff had failed to establish possession over the suit property, he could not be granted a decree of injunction. The Court reiterated that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to determine title over land pending consolidation proceedings, and confirmed that the injunction suit must fail as possession was not established.
Facts
The original plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Trial Court (O.S. No.189/87-I) seeking to restrain the defendants from disturbing his possession over the suit land. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on three registered sale deeds executed in 1970, 1971, and 1974, and asserted that he was in possession since the purchase. The property had allegedly passed through amicable partition among the defendants’ predecessors and was subsequently sold to the plaintiff’s vendors.
The defendants contested the suit asserting that the suit land was their joint ancestral property, had never been partitioned, and was in their possession. They further alleged that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff were fraudulent, and that the plaintiff had never possessed the land.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and this was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The successors of the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Orissa High Court.
Issues
- Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiff’s title was in dispute despite the consolidation records in his favour.
- Whether the Courts below were right in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction in light of the pending High Court proceedings concerning the consolidation authorities’ decision.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants contended that the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the consolidation record of rights had recorded the plaintiff’s name over the suit land, which amounts to recognition of title. Further, they argued that since there was a stay by the High Court on the consolidation authority’s contrary order, the Trial Court and Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit for injunction based on disputed title or possession.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents maintained that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit land, which was their ancestral homestead. They challenged the validity of the sale deeds and emphasized that a suit for injunction simpliciter without declaration of title or recovery of possession was not maintainable when the plaintiff lacked possession. They also asserted that during ongoing consolidation proceedings, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction over issues of title.
Analysis of the Law
The Court elaborated on the legal principles governing suits for injunction during consolidation operations. It reaffirmed that:
- The jurisdiction to determine title during consolidation vests with the consolidation authorities.
- A suit for injunction simpliciter can lie only if it is confined to possession and does not involve adjudication of title.
- If the plaintiff is not in possession, no injunction can be granted, irrespective of the status of title.
The Court cited authoritative precedents to emphasize that the Civil Court is barred from adjudicating title during consolidation, and reiterated that equitable relief like injunction requires proof of possession.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on several judgments to affirm its view:
- Raghunath Sahu v. Sarat Nayak (1987 (I) OLR 144): Suit for injunction simpliciter not barred by Section 4(4) of the OCH & PFL Act.
- Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Kalandi Kandi (2016 (I) CLR 565): Civil Court can entertain injunction suits without adjudication of title.
- Laxmidhar Sahu v. State of Orissa (2019 (I) CLR 950): Decision of consolidation authorities is binding and civil courts cannot re-decide title.
- Bruce v. Silva Raj (1987 Supp SCC 161): Injunction cannot be granted where possession is not established.
The Supreme Court’s view in cases like Kashibai v. Parwatibai (1995 SCC (6) 213) and Ramathal v. Rajamani (2024 (1) Civil L. Judgment (SC) 243) were cited to restrict interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of fact.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that since both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had found, based on evidence, that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, no injunction could be granted. This was a pure finding of fact, and the High Court could not interfere in second appeal. The Court observed:
“Possession of the suit land is main consideration while considering the relief i.e. permanent injunction.”
Further, it noted that the issue of title was sub judice before the High Court in a pending writ (OJC No.1786 of 1995) and should not have been gone into by the civil courts.
Conclusion
The Second Appeal was dismissed with the High Court confirming that:
- The plaintiff had failed to establish possession over the suit land.
- Injunction cannot be granted where possession is not proved.
- The question of title must be resolved by the consolidation authorities and was sub judice.
- The Trial Court and First Appellate Court were correct in refusing the injunction.
Implications
This judgment reiterates key principles:
- Civil courts cannot adjudicate title during consolidation operations.
- Possession is a prerequisite for injunction.
- Second appeals cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact.
- Equitable relief will be denied when possession is not proved, even if title remains undecided.
Referred Cases and Their Relevance
- Raghunath Sahu v. Sarat Nayak – Clarified that suits for injunction are not barred during consolidation.
- Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Kalandi Kandi – Reinforced the maintainability of injunction suits not involving title.
- Laxmidhar Sahu v. State of Orissa – Confirmed that decisions of consolidation authorities are binding and operate as res judicata.
- Shabbu v. Moinuddin – Held that injunction requires proof of possession.
- Bruce v. Silva Raj – Denied injunction where possession not established.
- Kashibai v. Parwatibai – Restrained High Court from interfering in second appeal on findings of fact.
FAQs
1. Can a civil suit for injunction be entertained during consolidation proceedings?
Yes, but only if the injunction is sought solely on the basis of possession and does not involve adjudication of title.
2. What is required to succeed in a suit for injunction?
The plaintiff must prove actual possession over the suit property. Injunction will not be granted in absence of possession.
3. Can High Courts interfere in second appeals where the lower courts have concurrently found against the plaintiff on facts?
No. The High Court cannot disturb concurrent factual findings unless they involve a substantial question of law.
