2015 (1) TMI 1408 - SC - Indian Laws

Possession of property - Restrain from interfering in possession of the premises in occupation - defendant denied the title and possession of the Plaintiff over land in suit - Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land - Held that - The argument of defendant cannot be agreed for the reason that had it been a case of mandatory injunction requiring restoration of possession of land to the Plaintiff or demolition of the construction raised by the Defendants what the Defendants have pleaded before us could have been accepted but the present suit is for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land which is described with boundaries and its municipal number. Therefore it cannot be said that the decree passed by the trial court is un-executable. Advocate Commissioner s report in the present case is against the weight of the oral and documentary evidence on record which sufficiently proves that Plaintiff was in possession over plot No. 358 and for several years he was paying the house tax as was found by the trial court on the basis of house tax receipts and extracts of house tax Assessment Register. It is not disputed that plot No. 357 belonging to the Defendants was in south of plot No. 358 and house of the Defendants was situated over their plot. The trial court has decreed the suit only in respect of plot No. 358. The decree passed by the trial court is restored - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership and possession of the suit property
2. Illegal interference by the Defendants
3. Barred by provisions of Specific Relief Act
4. Undervaluation and insufficiency of court fees
5. Mis-joinder of Defendant No. 2
6. Relief entitled to the Plaintiff

Ownership and Possession of the Suit Property:
The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants to restrain them from interfering with his possession of the premises. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of plot No. 358, while the Defendants contested, stating that the land originally belonged to a Zamindar and Defendant No. 1 had occupied it since 1979. The trial court decided in favor of the Plaintiff based on evidence like house tax receipts and Assessment Register entries. The High Court restored the trial court's decree, emphasizing the Plaintiff's possession and identification of the property.

Illegal Interference by the Defendants:
The Defendants were accused of threatening to forcibly take possession of the Plaintiff's premises. The trial court found in favor of the Plaintiff, considering evidence like Assessment Register entries and house tax receipts. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the Plaintiff's possession over plot No. 358.

Barred by Provisions of Specific Relief Act:
The Defendants argued that the suit was barred by Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the trial court and the High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, emphasizing evidence of possession and ownership presented by the Plaintiff.

Undervaluation and Insufficiency of Court Fees:
The issue of undervaluation and insufficiency of court fees was raised. However, the focus of the case was on ownership, possession, and interference with the Plaintiff's property, leading to the trial court and the High Court ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.

Mis-Joinder of Defendant No. 2:
The Defendants argued that the suit was bad for the mis-joinder of Defendant No. 2. However, the trial court and the High Court did not find this argument substantial, focusing instead on the evidence of possession and ownership presented by the Plaintiff.

Relief Entitled to the Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the Defendants to protect his possession of the premises. The trial court and the High Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, emphasizing his possession and ownership of plot No. 358. The High Court restored the trial court's decree, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.