Supreme Court Restores Remand in Property Dispute: Jose vs. Johnson (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 02 March 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 185

Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a court, in a suit for a simple injunction, ignore the question of title when the defendant disputes the plaintiff’s right to the property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute between family members. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the lower appellate court which had remanded the matter back to the trial court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment, with Justice A.S. Bopanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute involves a property in Ernakulam, Kerala, between two cousins. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed ownership of a portion of the property through a partition deed of 2007. He filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Jose, to prevent him from obstructing the construction of a wall on the eastern side of his property. The defendant contested the claim, asserting that the property was not properly identified and that the plaintiff’s right to the property was under challenge. The defendant also referred to a partition deed of 1964.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the First Appellate Court, which set aside the Trial Court’s judgment and remanded the case back to the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court noted that the plaintiff had not made sufficient efforts to identify the property and that the defendant was not given sufficient opportunity to prove their claim. The plaintiff then appealed to the High Court of Kerala, which reversed the First Appellate Court’s decision and restored the Trial Court’s decree, stating that in a suit for bare injunction, the title to the property was not relevant. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Order 41 Rule 23A and Order 43 Rule 1(w) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Order 41 Rule 23A of CPC deals with the power of the Appellate Court to remand a case. It states that:

“Where the court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the suit otherwise than on a preliminary point, and the decree is reversed in appeal, and a re-trial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court shall have the same power as it has under rule 23.”

Order 43 Rule 1(w) of CPC provides for an appeal against an order under Rule 23 or Rule 23A of Order 41. It states that:

“an order under rule 23 or rule 23A of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court”

The Supreme Court also refers to Section 96 of CPC, which provides for appeals from original decrees.

Arguments

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The plaintiff argued that in a suit for a bare injunction, the primary consideration is possession, not title.
• The plaintiff relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. [(2019) 8 SCC 729], which emphasizes the relevance of possession, even if it is adverse to the owner’s interest.
• The plaintiff contended that since possession was established before the Trial Court, the decree granted by the Trial Court was justified.

Defendant’s Arguments:

• The defendant argued that the nature of the rival contentions indicated that the claim to the property where the wall was being constructed was disputed.
• The defendant contended that the plaintiff had not sought a declaration of right over the property when his right was under challenge, making the suit itself not maintainable.
• The defendant argued that the lower appellate court had appropriately remanded the matter for proper consideration.
• The defendant also contended that the property was not properly identified by the plaintiff and the defendant was not given sufficient opportunity to prove their claim.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of the lower appellate court which had remanded the matter back to the trial court. The issues framed by the Trial Court were:

1. Whether the plaint schedule property is identifiable?
2. Whether the plaintiff is in ownership and possession of the property?
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the cause of action alleged is true and correct?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as prayed for?
6. Reliefs and costs.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the lower appellate court’s decision to remand the case. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the order of the lower appellate court.

The following authorities were viewed by the Court:

• Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur & Ors. [(2019) 8 SCC 729]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was not applicable to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature of the pleadings and the issues framed by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that while possession is a key consideration in a suit for bare injunction, the court cannot ignore the issue of title when it is explicitly challenged by the defendant. The Court also noted that the Trial Court had framed issues that included ownership and possession, and the plaintiff did not object to these issues.

The court considered the High Court’s view that only possession was relevant in a suit for perpetual injunction. However, it rejected this view because the defendant had challenged the plaintiff’s right to the property. The court noted that the Trial Court had framed issues that included ownership and possession, and the plaintiff did not object to these issues. The court also noted that the defendant had sought to produce additional evidence, which the lower appellate court had allowed.

The Supreme Court quoted the prayer in the plaint:

“(a) issue a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their people from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or questioning the right of the plaintiff or obstructing the enjoyment of the plaintiff or committing waste trespassing into the plaint schedule property or destroying the peaceful life of the plaintiff.”

The Court also noted that the emphasized portion of the prayer indicated that the defendant had challenged the right of the plaintiff and not merely interfered with the lawful possession.

The Court stated that:

“If this aspect is kept in view the very nature of the plaint averments would indicate that the parties to the suit are related to each other and the property which was being commonly enjoyed by their predecessors was partitioned under the Deed No.2617/2007.”

The Court also noted that:

“The Issues No.1 and 2 framed by the trial court refers to the identity of the property as also the ownership and possession thereof. The plaintiff did not object to the said issues nor did the plaintiff file any application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking amendment or to strike out the said issues.”

Key Takeaways

• In a suit for a bare injunction, while possession is a crucial factor, the court cannot ignore the question of title if the defendant specifically challenges the plaintiff’s right to the property.
• The nature of the pleadings and the issues framed by the trial court are vital in determining the scope of the suit.
• If a defendant raises a valid challenge to the plaintiff’s title and seeks to produce additional evidence, the appellate court may be justified in remanding the case for fresh consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the lower appellate court, which had remanded the matter back to the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in a suit for a bare injunction, the court cannot ignore the issue of title when it is specifically challenged by the defendant. The Court clarified that while possession is a key consideration in a suit for bare injunction, the court cannot ignore the issue of title when it is explicitly challenged by the defendant. This clarifies the position of law that each case must be examined on its own merits, considering the pleadings and the issues framed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jose vs. Johnson emphasizes the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, especially in property disputes. While possession is a key factor in injunction suits, the court cannot ignore a challenge to the title of the property. The Supreme Court restored the order of the lower appellate court which had remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration.