Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that while the Will relied upon by the plaintiff had been duly proved, the claim for injunction to restrain interference in possession could not be sustained, since the defendant’s possession over the property was admitted in both the pleadings and evidence. However, the Court upheld the injunction restraining alienation of the property, noting that neither party had established clear title to the land.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran observed:
“Even if the title is established, there should have been a prayer for recovery of possession. The ill-drafted plaint and the clear admissions made in evidence ought to have restricted the courts below from granting an injunction against interference with peaceful enjoyment of the property.”
The Court allowed the appeal in part, reserving liberty to both parties to institute fresh proceedings for declaration of title and recovery of possession within three months. Until then, neither party shall alienate or encumber the property.
Facts
The case stemmed from a family property dispute among the children of one Rangaswamy Naidu. The respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court) claimed ownership over half of 1.74½ acres (0.87¼ acres) based on a registered Will dated 30 September 1985, executed by their father, who allegedly bequeathed the land equally between the plaintiff and her brother Govindarajan.
The defendant (another brother, Munuswamy) resisted the claim, asserting that the property was ancestral in nature, and their father had no authority to bequeath it. He further claimed that there had been an oral partition in 1983, under which the property was already divided between himself and Govindarajan.
The Trial Court accepted the Will as valid and decreed the suit, granting injunctions restraining the defendant from (a) alienating or encumbering the property and (b) interfering with the plaintiff’s alleged peaceful possession.
The First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the land was ancestral property not capable of testamentary disposition. The High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court’s decree, finding that the father had absolute ownership and the Will was proved.
The defendant’s legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the Will executed by the father was valid and proved in accordance with law.
- Whether an injunction simpliciter could be granted without a prayer for declaration of title or recovery of possession, when the plaintiff admitted the defendant’s possession.
- Whether the courts below were justified in granting injunction against interference with possession despite contradictory pleadings.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellants, representing the defendant’s estate, argued that the plaintiff never sought a declaration of title or recovery of possession, despite admitting that the defendant had long been in possession of the property. The suit for injunction simpliciter was therefore not maintainable in law.
They relied on Exhibit B1, an agreement executed in 1983 among Rangaswamy Naidu, Govindarajan, and Munuswamy, asserting that the properties had already been divided during the father’s lifetime. The appellants contended that the plaintiff had not produced any ocular or documentary evidence proving possession, and that even her own statements in cross-examination acknowledged that the defendant was in occupation.
It was also argued that the Will, though proved, could not confer possessionary rights because the testator’s title to the property itself was clouded by its ancestral character. Therefore, the High Court’s restoration of the injunction on possession was erroneous and contrary to law.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent (plaintiff) contended that there were two separate properties, one purchased in 1934 and another in 1984. The suit concerned only the dry land purchased in 1934, not the house property acquired later. The plaintiff maintained that the disputed property was the self-acquired asset of the father, as the grandmother never claimed ownership during her lifetime.
The plaintiff argued that the Will was validly executed and proved, as both attesting witnesses were identified: PW-1 confirmed the testator’s signature, and PW-2 (the deceased attesting witness’s son) affirmed his father’s signature.
She further contended that the injunction was necessary to prevent alienation and interference, given that the defendant’s claim of co-ownership was inconsistent and unsupported by any document of title.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court emphasized that in civil suits for injunction based on ownership, pleadings must correspond to the nature of possession claimed. When the plaintiff admits that possession lies with the defendant, a declaratory or recovery relief becomes indispensable.
The Court found that while the Will (Ex.A6) was proved in compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the testator’s right to bequeath remained doubtful because the property had earlier been shown as belonging to the grandmother. As she never formally conveyed title to her son, a cloud persisted on ownership.
Citing settled principles of property law, the Bench held that mere proof of a Will does not entitle a person to relief unless possession and ownership flow from it. The High Court had erred in treating the Will as conferring both title and possession when the pleadings and evidence showed otherwise.
Precedent Analysis
- Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Reiterated that where the title is disputed and possession is not with the plaintiff, a bare injunction suit is not maintainable without seeking declaration of ownership or recovery of possession.
- Maria Margaret v. Joseph A. Fernandez (2022 SCC OnLine SC 23) – Affirmed that an ill-conceived plaint lacking prayer for possession cannot sustain an injunction against interference.
- Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 – Held that possession follows title only when the title is clear and undisputed; otherwise, injunctions must be refused.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning aligned with these precedents, reinforcing the doctrine that title and possession must be pleaded and proved concurrently for equitable relief.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench meticulously examined the pleadings and noted that the plaintiff had admitted the defendant’s possession multiple times, both in the plaint and deposition. She also conceded that the defendant and Govindarajan were residing on different portions of the land.
The Court observed that the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was a tenant was unsupported by any rent receipts or tenancy agreements, and a prior suit (O.S. No. 895 of 1984) filed by their father for recovery of rent was dismissed for default, with no finding of tenancy.
Thus, the Court concluded that:
- The Will was proved, but the testator’s title remained unestablished.
- The injunction against interference was unsustainable since the plaintiff was not in possession.
- The injunction against alienation was justified to maintain status quo until ownership was determined.
“While the Will stands proved, the right of the testator to bequeath remains under a cloud. The courts below ought not to have granted an injunction against interference when possession was clearly with the defendant.”
The Court reserved liberty for both parties to institute appropriate proceedings for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, directing that such suits be filed within three months and decided independently of the present findings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment, sustaining only the injunction restraining alienation of the property and setting aside the injunction against interference in possession. It clarified that both parties remain free to establish their ownership through a properly framed declaratory suit.
“Since a stalemate is created with ownership not having been declared in favour of either party, liberty is reserved to seek declaration of title and consequential possession. No alienation or encumbrance shall be effected by either party.”
Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that an injunction simpliciter cannot substitute for a declaratory or recovery remedy. It warns litigants that poorly drafted pleadings can limit relief, even when a Will or document of title is proved. The decision also underscores the importance of clarity between ownership and possession in family property disputes.
By reserving liberty to both parties, the Court sought to balance equitable considerations while preventing further alienation of disputed property.
FAQs
1. Can a court grant injunction if the plaintiff is not in possession?
No. When possession is admitted to be with the defendant, a simple injunction suit is not maintainable without seeking declaration of ownership or recovery of possession.
2. Does proving a Will automatically confer ownership?
Not necessarily. The Will must be supported by the testator’s valid title to the property; if the ownership itself is disputed, the beneficiary must seek a declaratory decree.
3. What happens if pleadings are defective in an injunction suit?
Ill-drafted pleadings can bar relief. Courts rely strictly on the prayers sought; absence of a prayer for possession or declaration prevents broader reliefs.
