Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court held that when the title to the suit property is in dispute and possession rests with the defendant, a mere suit for injunction restraining interference with peaceful enjoyment of the property is not maintainable unless it is accompanied by a suit seeking a declaration of title and consequential recovery of possession.

In other words, the Court held that when the plaintiff is not in possession and the defendant claims ownership, the proper remedy is a declaratory suit, not a bare injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963

A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran heard the case where the plaintiff sought injunction against the defendant from alienating and interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit property. The plaintiff sough interim relief based on the disputed Will, and even lacked possession of the suit property, moreover no declaration of title was sought while filing a suit for injunction.

Briefly put, the dispute arose over a piece of land among three siblings D. Rajammal (plaintiff), Munuswamy (now dead, represented by his LRs as Appellant-defendant), and Govindarajan. Rajammal claimed ownership through a Will, allegedly executed by their father, Rangaswamy Naidu, bequeathing equal shares to her and Govindarajan.

In contrast, the defendant brother, Munuswamy, contended that the property was ancestral joint family property, not the father's self-acquired estate, and that he held possession as a co-owner under a 1983 family arrangement.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, accepting the Will as proved and granting two injunctions, one restraining alienation of the property and another preventing interference with her alleged possession.

The First Appellate Court, reversed the decree, holding the property to be ancestral and the Will invalid.

The High Court in Second Appeal restored the trial court's findings, reasoning that since the Will was valid, title vested in the plaintiff, and “possession follows title.”

Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, the defendant approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant-defendant argued that since there was a clear admission by the Respondent-plaintiff that the suit property's possession vested with the defendant, then a suit for injunction simplicitor would not be maintainable unless a suit seeking a declaration of title followed by a consequential recovery of possession is also sought.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran said that when the defendant also claimed ownership over the suit's property as a co-owner then a suit simplicitor seeking injunction would not be maintainable.

“It is also significant that though the plaintiff did not have possession, she had not claimed recovery of possession. While asserting a Will and title on its strength, there should have been a declaration of title sought, especially when the contention of the defendant was that he came into the property as a co-owner and then occupies it with absolute rights, making valuable improvements.”, the court said.

The Court added that the High Court should not have interfered with the First Appellate Court's decision, as the plaintiff's clear admission of the Appellant-defendant's possession over the suit property proved that she was not in possession of the suit property, therefore cannot claim injunction without first seeking title declaration and recovery of possession.

“Even if the title is established, there should have been a recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff. The ill-drafted plaint and the clear admissions made in the witness box ought to have restricted the trial court and the High Court from granting an injunction against the interference of peaceful enjoyment of the property, especially when the possession was admitted to be with the defendant, in the pleadings as also the oral evidence.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. Versus D. Rajammal

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1059

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Nandakumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Punit Agarwwal, Adv. Mr. Sajal Jain, AOR