Introduction

Injunction forms an important part of the suit as it grants interim relief to the aggrieved party from the actions of the other party. The reason why injunction in the form of temporary and mandatory injunction were introduced by legislature were to safeguard Plaintiff from the illegal actions of the Defendant. On the application under Order 39 Civil Procedure Code by the Plaintiff, the court would immediately grant injunction in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant till the final decision of the court. As litigation takes years to conclude and if Plaintiff had to wait for such a long period of time, then the purpose of such injunction would become fructuous.

However, in a recent judgment titled as T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy v. M. Mallappa & Anr., Supreme Court held that suit for a permanent injunction is not maintainable when the title of the property is disputed by the Defendant.

And this is not the first judgment wherein Supreme Court has held that suit for injunction is not maintainable when the title of the Plaintiff is disputed by the Defendant. Supreme Court had earlier in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy through LRs & Ors., also emphasized on the same point and concluded that a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable in the eyes of the law when the ownership of the Plaintiff is disputed by the landlord.

Through the case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Supreme Court reiterated this point.

Facts of the Case

Why there is a need for declaration before grant of permanent injunction?

Will this judgment be causing additional harassment for the Plaintiff?

Does revenue record seems to be valid proof of the title?

Conclusion

Facts of the Case

The facts of the case are that Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendant’s restraining them or anyone acting on their behalf from interfering from the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff. It was averted in the case before the district court that Plaintiff is the rightful and absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. It was further averted that Defendants had attempted to demolish his property, which forced the Plaintiff to file the suit for injunction against the Defendants.

Observing the facts of the case Supreme Court held that where there is clear title of the Plaintiff over the suit property, Plaintiff has no bar to file the suit for injunction against the Defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff.

However, the facts of the present suit reveals that the Plaintiff’s title have been in question as been challenged by the Defendants. Supreme Court observing that the dispute of the Plaintiff is in dispute, it held that the parties are litigating before the Civil Court, which only has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters between the parties. Furthermore, Supreme Court also held that till such civil court does not adjudicate upon the title over the suit property, suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Therefore, Supreme Court observed that this is a clear case where the Plaintiff does not have the absolute title over the suit property or there is no cloud on Plaintiff’s title over the suit property as disputed by the Defendant and therefore, the disputed question requires adjudication which can only be done after the evidence is being led and question of fact and law are decided.

Thus, Supreme Court again reaffirmed the position that suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when the title of the Plaintiff is disputed by the Defendant.

Why there is a need for declaration before grant of permanent injunction?

When a person approaches the court for permanent injunction, he came before the court as his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his property is squatter disturbed. However, such case is based on the assumption that Plaintiff is enjoying peaceful possession of his property, of which he his lawful title. However, when the same is disputed by the Defendant who is said to have encroached upon the peaceful possession of the land of the Plaintiff, such becomes a question of fact which needs to be adjudicated first.

In such scenarios, it becomes extremely important to first adjudicate as to who is the real owner of the land in dispute Furthermore, it is for the Plaintiff, who is seeking injunction, to prove that he got a better title than the Defendant against whom he is claiming injunction.

Supreme Court held the suit for injunction not to be maintainable when title is disputed, as granting injunction against the rightful owner would cause grave miscarriage of justice. Thus, clearing the title before granting the injunction becomes of utmost importance.

Will this judgment be causing additional harassment for the Plaintiff?

Some would argue that making Plaintiff wait for the entire case to be decided and his title be cleared before granting him injunction would cause great injustice to the Plaintiff. And it is true to the extent that if Plaintiff is able to prove his rightful ownership and title over the land, then making him wait to get injunction and restraining Defendant from encroaching on his property, till the completion of trial which might take years would be miscarriage of justice for the Plaintiff and would seem to extend Plaintiff’s woes.

Furthermore, it can be argued that Defendant with ulterior motives can dispute Plaintiff’s title to the suit property, when in actual he does not have any good title to the property. This would not only cause harassment for the Plaintiff but would also give the Defendant unreasonable time to delay the suit in question, as the Defendant could possibly not be having any better title than the Plaintiff.

Seeing this harassment at the hands of Defendant, Supreme Court did not close its doors to the Plaintiff. Through its various judgments, Supreme Court seems to have acknowledged that mere suspicion to the title of the Plaintiff by Defendant would not render court to go into determining the title of the Plaintiff.

Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar further observed that “A cloud is said to raise over a person’s title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff’s title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and a suit for injunction may be sufficient.” Thus, Supreme Court has clarified that court would go into determining the validity of the title of the Plaintiff only when there appears to be serious defect in the title of the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Vasavi Co-op Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., Supreme Court held that merely disputing or disproving the plaintiff’s title to the suit property would not be enough for the defendant to dispossess the plaintiff. Each party shall have to prove better title than the other to resist dispossession, and one could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the (opposite party)[v]. Thus, it is only fair that if a dispute as to the title property arises, it be settled before a permanent injunction may be granted, so as to avoid miscarriage of justice.

Does revenue record seems to be valid proof of the title?

Supreme Court in the case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy also cleared the stance as to whether revenue record would be a valid proof of title or not?

Supreme Court held that “It is no more res integra that revenue records are no proof of title, but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title. Mutation entry in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title over the land, nor such entry has any presumptive value on the title of such land.”

Thus, with Supreme Court clarifying the position as to the validity of revenue records as proof of ownership, it just leaves with the sale deed as the concrete proof of the ownership. However, this does not mean that original sale deed have to be produced every time Plaintiff have to assert that he is the owner of the suit property. Certified copy of the sale deed can also be adduced as evidence in order for Plaintiff to show that he is the owner of the suit property.

Conclusion

Supreme Court have paved the way for justice for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant by giving Plaintiff the reasonable opportunity to clear its title before granting him injunction against the Defendant. However, Defendants are also provided with the opportunity to prove their better title than the Plaintiff and restrain Plaintiff from having injunction.