Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court delivered a powerful and corrective judgment holding that an injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff admittedly lacks possession and has failed to seek consequential relief such as declaration of title or recovery of possession. The Court affirmed that although the Will relied upon by the plaintiff was proved, the plaintiff’s own pleadings and testimony revealed that possession remained with the defendant. In such circumstances, granting an injunction against interference with peaceful enjoyment was legally impermissible. The Court reserved liberty to both parties to institute fresh proceedings for declaration of title and consequential possession within three months, while restraining any alienation of the property until then.
Facts
The dispute arose from a suit seeking two injunctions: one restraining alienation or encumbrance of agricultural property, and another restraining interference with peaceful possession. The plaintiff asserted absolute ownership over half share of the property under a Will executed by her father. She also initially alleged that the defendant occupied the property only as a tenant. The defendant, however, asserted co-ownership rights and claimed that the property had been orally divided during the father’s lifetime. Earlier litigation concerning possession had been filed by the father, later dismissed for default after his death. Years later, the plaintiff initiated the present suit, again acknowledging that the defendant remained in possession.
Issues
The core issues before the Court were whether the plaintiff, who admitted that the defendant was in possession, could obtain a bare injunction without seeking declaration of title or recovery of possession, and whether the Will relied upon by the plaintiff established a clear and indefeasible title. Another issue was whether the earlier arrangement alleged by the defendant or the history of possession cast doubt on the testator’s right to bequeath the property. Finally, the Court considered whether the plaintiff’s pleadings and testimony barred the grant of injunctions under settled civil law principles.
Petitioner’s Arguements
The appellants, being the legal heirs of the defendant, argued that the plaintiff could not maintain a suit for bare injunction without proving possession or seeking declaration of title. They contended that the plaintiff had consistently admitted that the defendant was in possession. They relied on an earlier agreement and longstanding occupation to claim that the property had already been divided in practice. The appellants submitted that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence of possession and that the trial court and High Court erred in granting injunctions without addressing the inherent defect in the pleadings. They emphasised that injunctive relief cannot override actual possession.
Respondent’s Arguements
The plaintiff argued that the Will executed by the father unequivocally granted her half share in the agricultural property and that the defendant’s possession was only permissive or incidental. She contended that there were two distinct properties: one ancestral house purchased in 1984, and the agricultural land forming the suit property. She submitted that the injunction was necessary to protect her title, especially since the defendant had no documentary proof of co-ownership beyond assertions. She relied on the Will’s validity and the absence of any challenge during the father’s lifetime to assert that the defendant’s possession could not defeat her right to seek protection.
Analysis of Law
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that a plaintiff who is not in possession cannot maintain a suit for injunction alone. When the plaintiff asserts title but admits lack of possession, the appropriate remedy is declaration of title with recovery of possession. The Court held that even if the Will was proved, the plaintiff needed to seek the proper substantive relief. The Court found the pleadings internally inconsistent: on the one hand asserting tenancy, on the other admitting possession with the defendant and another sibling. It held that granting an injunction in favour of someone who is not in possession would contradict the equitable foundations of injunctive relief.
Precedent Analysis
Although the judgment does not cite external decisions, the Court’s reasoning reflects long-standing jurisprudence that injunctions cannot be granted where possession is not established. The Court relied on foundational equitable principles governing injunctions and the conceptual requirement that a plaintiff must show either settled possession or imminent threat to such possession. It also applied established doctrines distinguishing title suits from injunction suits, holding that a declaratory remedy becomes indispensable when possession is admittedly lacking. The reasoning harmonises with consistent judicial standards requiring plaintiffs to seek appropriate reliefs rather than fragmentary remedies.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the Will was indeed proved, but the testator’s right to bequeath the entirety of the property remained clouded, since competing claims suggested ancestral origin. More critically, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant was in possession. Injunction against interference with possession therefore could not be granted. The Court noted inconsistencies: the plaintiff described the land as 1.74½ acres but claimed her half share without identifying boundaries aligning with the other beneficiary’s share. The plaintiff repeatedly acknowledged that defendants occupied and enjoyed the property. In these circumstances, the trial court and High Court erred in granting injunction over property the plaintiff did not possess.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the injunction restraining interference with possession could not stand, as the plaintiff lacked possession and had not sought recovery or declaration of title. However, the injunction restraining alienation was sustained temporarily because neither party had sought declaratory remedies. The Court permitted both parties to file appropriate proceedings for declaration of title and recovery of possession within three months. It clarified that any such fresh action would be considered independently, without being influenced by findings in the present judgment. Both parties were restrained from alienating or encumbering the property in the interim.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that civil suits must be framed with correct reliefs, especially when possession is disputed. It clarifies that a Will alone cannot justify an injunction without possession. The ruling strengthens the principle that courts cannot grant bare injunctions that disturb settled possession. It encourages litigants to seek appropriate remedies such as declaration or partition instead of relying on limited injunction suits. It also ensures that long-standing disputes involving family property must be conclusively adjudicated through proper proceedings, not piecemeal interlocutory litigation.
