9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1593 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of injunction in favour of the original Plaintiff restraining the Defendant from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff - HELD THAT - An injunction is a consequential relief and in a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction it is not a suit for declaration simpliciter it is a suit for declaration with a further relief. Whether the further relief claimed has in a particular case as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Where once a suit is held not maintainable no relief of injunction can be granted. Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of the property only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to be in possession not to disposes him except in due process of law. All the Courts below have erred in granting permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1 who is the true owner. After having held that the Plaintiff had no title and after dismissing the suit qua the cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1-the true owner. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Plaintiff's suit for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the Plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land and entitled to permanent injunction. 3. Whether the relief of permanent injunction was a substantive or consequential relief. 4. Whether the Plaintiff, having lost the title claim, could still seek an injunction against the true owner. Detailed Analysis: 1. Limitation on Suit for Cancellation of Sale Deed The Plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.1975 after a period of 22 years. The trial court and the First Appellate Court held that the suit for cancellation was barred by limitation. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the Plaintiff had deemed knowledge of the sale deed due to its registration and subsequent mutation in the Revenue records. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, citing the principle that the date of registration is the date of deemed knowledge, and thus the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Possession and Permanent Injunction The trial court, despite refusing to cancel the sale deed, granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, believing her to be in possession of 5 acres and 15 gunthas of the disputed land. This decision was upheld by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff's possession could not be deemed lawful once the title was adjudicated in favor of the Defendant. The Court emphasized that an injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder in favor of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession. 3. Substantive vs. Consequential Relief The High Court considered the relief of permanent injunction as a substantive relief. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the main relief sought by the Plaintiff was the cancellation of the sale deed and declaration of title, making the injunction a consequential relief. Since the Plaintiff failed to obtain the primary relief, the consequential relief of permanent injunction must also fail. 4. Injunction Against True Owner The Supreme Court held that once the Plaintiff lost the title claim, she could not seek an injunction against the true owner. The Court cited precedents indicating that a person in unlawful possession cannot be granted an injunction against the rightful owner. The Court also clarified that due process of law does not mean that the true owner must file a separate suit for possession; it is satisfied once the rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent court. Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that all lower courts erred in granting the permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, having failed to secure a declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed, was not entitled to any injunction against the Defendant, the true owner. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the trial court, as affirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, were quashed, and the Plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was dismissed.
|
