2018 (10) TMI 1923 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for permanent injunction - seeking peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by constructing a residential building in the land - legal right and title over the suit Schedule property - Whether the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the Defendant disputes the title of the Plaintiff? HELD THAT - It is well settled by catena of Judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the Defendant disputes the title of the Plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases Plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the Defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the Plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, Plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction - In the facts of the case the Defendant-Board by relying upon the land acquisition proceedings and the possession certificate could successfully raise cloud over the title of the Plaintiff and in those circumstances Plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration. The Courts below erred in entertaining the suit for injunction. The judgment and decree impugned in the appeal deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over title of the Plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Jharkhand dismissing the appeal filed by the Board. The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the Defendant-Board's notice to vacate the property. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff had no legal right over the property as it was acquired through land acquisition proceedings. The trial court decreed the suit, finding it not barred under relevant acts. The 1st Appellate Court and the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the Plaintiff's possession rights.

The main issue for consideration was whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the Defendant disputes the Plaintiff's title. The Supreme Court referred to established judgments, stating that a suit for injunction can be maintained unless the Defendant raises a genuine dispute over the Plaintiff's title, clouding the title. In this case, the Defendant-Board successfully raised doubts over the Plaintiff's title through land acquisition proceedings, requiring the Plaintiff to seek a declaration of title. The Court concluded that the lower courts erred in allowing the suit for injunction without the relief of declaration.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, directing the parties to maintain status quo for three months to enable the Plaintiff to pursue appropriate remedies. The appeal was allowed without costs, emphasizing the necessity for the Plaintiff to establish title through a declaration in such circumstances.