2012 (3) TMI 594 - SC - Indian Laws

Respondent's suit for injunction against the true owner - Here, the respondent filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellant is the owner of the suit property and has the title and possession of the same which was never challenged by the respondent. The appellant also submitted that apart from the title of the suit property, house tax records and wealth tax records indicate that she was and continued to be the owner of the suit property. She further submitted that the utility bills of electricity, water and telephone were of minimal amount which show that the respondent had never resided in the suit premises. Appellant filed this petition against the order of trial court and High Court. HELD THAT - Truth as guiding star in judicial process In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Trial Court deserve to be set aside and we accordingly do so. Consequently, this Court directs that the possession of the suit premises be handed over to the appellant, who is admittedly the owner of the suit property. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the legal representatives of the respondent are granted three months time to vacate the suit premises. They are further directed that after the expiry of the three months period, the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property be handed over to the appellant. The usual undertaking to this effect be filed by the legal representatives of the respondent in this Court within two weeks.

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the suit property.
2. Validity of the injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. Role of the caretaker and their rights.
4. Judicial principles regarding truth and justice.
5. Legal principles regarding pleadings and possession.
6. Grant or refusal of an injunction.
7. Mesne profits and compensation.

Detailed Analysis:

Ownership and Possession of the Suit Property:
The appellant claimed to be the sole owner and in exclusive possession of the suit property, which was originally owned by her grandmother and later acquired by her through court auction. The respondent, her brother, was given the property as a caretaker. The appellant's ownership was supported by various legal documents, including a certificate from the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, and records from the Panaji Municipal Council. The respondent did not dispute the appellant's title but claimed possession based on a family arrangement.

Validity of the Injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act:
The appellant argued that the respondent's suit for injunction was not maintainable as he was merely a caretaker and not in lawful possession of the property. The trial court and the High Court had granted an injunction in favor of the respondent, which the appellant contended was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases like Mahabir Prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh and Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu. The Supreme Court reiterated that an injunction under Section 6 is not maintainable against the true owner.

Role of the Caretaker and Their Rights:
The Court emphasized that a caretaker, watchman, or servant cannot acquire any interest in the property, irrespective of the duration of possession. The caretaker holds the property on behalf of the principal and must return possession upon demand. The respondent, being a caretaker, did not have any legal right to retain possession against the true owner.

Judicial Principles Regarding Truth and Justice:
The judgment highlighted the importance of truth in the judicial process, stating that the primary duty of the courts is to discover the truth and administer justice. The Court cited various precedents and legal principles emphasizing that justice must be based on truth, and judges must actively seek to uncover the truth in every case.

Legal Principles Regarding Pleadings and Possession:
The Court stressed the importance of detailed and specific pleadings in civil cases, particularly those involving possession and title disputes. It noted that possession is an incidence of ownership and must be considered in conjunction with title documents. The person resisting a claim for possession must provide detailed pleadings and supporting documents.

Grant or Refusal of an Injunction:
The Court underscored that the grant or refusal of an injunction is a critical stage in civil trials and must be handled with care. It suggested that courts should give short notice on injunction applications and consider pragmatic realities, including market rent, when granting or refusing injunctions. The Court also recommended that plaintiffs be required to give undertakings to pay market rent if the suit is dismissed.

Mesne Profits and Compensation:
The Court noted that false claims and defenses are common in real estate litigation due to escalating property values. It emphasized that courts should critically examine pleadings and documents and consider granting mesne profits to discourage frivolous litigation. In this case, the Court directed the respondent's legal representatives to pay Rs. 1,00,000 per month for three months towards the use and occupation of the premises and imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the respondents.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, directing the respondent's legal representatives to vacate the suit property within three months and hand over possession to the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of truth in judicial proceedings and the necessity of detailed pleadings and proper examination of documents in civil cases.

← Previous Next →