Supreme Court Restrains Injunction Against True Owner: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 176

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a person who has been deemed not to be the owner of a property, still get an injunction against the actual owner? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the circumstances under which an injunction can be granted. This case revolves around a dispute over land ownership and the subsequent grant of an injunction.

The core issue is whether a person who loses a title dispute can still be granted an injunction protecting their possession against the true owner. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined the interplay between ownership and possession, particularly when a person’s claim to title has been rejected by the court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The dispute involves land in Mahadeviya, District Deesa, specifically Revenue Survey No. 49, measuring 6 acres and 15 gunthas. The husband of the original plaintiff, Maniben Jagmalbhai, had sold this land to the original defendant, Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji, through a registered sale deed dated June 17, 1975. The defendant’s name was subsequently entered in the revenue records in 1976. The defendant claimed to have undertaken construction projects and secured a bank loan using the land as collateral between 1975 and 1997.

In 1999, the plaintiff’s husband passed away. Approximately 22 years after the sale deed, in 1997, Maniben Jagmalbhai filed a civil suit seeking the cancellation of the sale deed, a declaration of ownership, and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that her husband, being an alcoholic, had agreed to sell only 1 acre of land, but the defendant fraudulently registered the sale deed for the entire 6 acres and 15 gunthas. She claimed that only 1 acre was handed over to the defendant, while she remained in possession of the remaining land. The defendant contested the suit, asserting that he had purchased the entire land and had been in possession and cultivating it since the sale.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court partly allowed the suit, refusing to cancel the sale deed or declare the plaintiff as the owner. It held that the defendant had purchased the entire land through a valid sale deed. However, the trial court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from disturbing her possession of 5 acres and 15 gunthas of land.

The defendant appealed to the First Appellate Court, which upheld the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the defendant filed a second appeal before the High Court of Gujarat, which was also dismissed. The High Court held that the permanent injunction was a substantive relief and not a consequential one, and therefore, the trial court was correct in granting it.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with the grant of permanent injunctions. It also refers to Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which specifies the circumstances where an injunction cannot be granted. The court also discusses the concept of “lawful possession” and the limitations on granting injunctions against the true owner of a property. The court also refers to the concept of “due process of law” as explained in the case of *Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370*.

Arguments

Arguments by the Defendant:

• The defendant argued that once the relief for declaration of title was denied to the plaintiff, the permanent injunction to protect the plaintiff’s alleged possession should not have been granted. The injunction was contrary to Section 38 read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• The defendant contended that he was in possession of the entire land since the execution of the sale deed in 1975, as evidenced by the revenue records. He also pointed out that the sale deed mentioned that full consideration was paid and possession was handed over to him.
• The defendant submitted that the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief and should not have been granted once the declaration of title was denied.
• The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s possession, if any, was unlawful and could not be protected by an injunction.
• The defendant also argued that if the suit for declaration was barred by limitation, the relief for permanent injunction should also be barred.
• The defendant highlighted that the court had protected his possession through orders of status quo.

Arguments by the Plaintiff:

• The plaintiff argued that there were concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts that she was in possession of the land.
• The plaintiff contended that as she was in settled possession, the defendant’s only remedy was to file a substantive suit for possession.
• The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not lead any evidence to prove his possession, whereas she had proved her possession through oral and documentary evidence.
• The plaintiff submitted that the relief of permanent injunction was a substantive relief and not a consequential one.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in a case where the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned and the defendant against whom the permanent injunction is sought is the true owner of the land, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of permanent injunction against the true owner?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court applied the principle from *Dilboo Vs. Dhanraji, (2000) 7 SCC 702* regarding deemed knowledge of registered documents and the limitation period.
• The Court referred to *Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 692* to emphasize that a bare suit for injunction is not maintainable when there is a genuine title dispute.
• The Court referred to *A. Subramanian Vs. R. Pannerselvam, (2021) 3 SCC 675* to highlight that possession is good against all but the rightful owner, and an injunction cannot be granted against the rightful owner.
• The Court distinguished the case of *Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594*, stating that the plaintiff’s possession was not “lawful possession” as required for an injunction.
• The Court referred to *Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370* to explain the meaning of “due process of law”.
• The Court approved the findings of the High Court of Delhi in *Thomas Cook (India) Ltd. Vs. Hotel Imperial (2006) 88 DRJ 545* regarding due process of law and ejectment from settled possession.
• The Court referred to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to explain the grant of permanent injunctions and the circumstances where an injunction cannot be granted.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the plaintiff had lost the title dispute. The Court emphasized that once the defendant was declared the true owner, an injunction could not be granted against him in favor of the plaintiff, who was deemed to be in unlawful possession. The Court also considered the fact that the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title was barred by limitation, which also affected the maintainability of the consequential relief of permanent injunction. The Court also noted that the revenue records supported the defendant’s claim of ownership and possession.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents rather than on the factual aspects of the case. The legal considerations outweighed the factual aspects in the court’s decision-making process.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the trial court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court had erred in granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, who was the true owner of the land. The Court stated that an injunction cannot be issued against a true owner in favor of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession. The Court also emphasized that the relief of permanent injunction was a consequential relief and not a substantive one.

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title was barred by limitation. As a result, the consequential relief of permanent injunction was also barred. The Court noted that the concept of “due process of law” was satisfied when the rights of the parties were adjudicated upon by a competent court, and in this case, the defendant was held to be the true owner based on the registered sale deed. The Court also stated that the plaintiff’s possession was not “lawful possession”.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:
“An injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession.”

The Court further stated:
“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.”

The Court also quoted:
“Due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a competent court.”

There was no minority opinion in this case as the judgement was delivered by a two judge bench.

The Court’s decision has significant implications for cases involving disputes over property ownership and possession. It clarifies that a person who loses a title dispute cannot be granted an injunction against the true owner, and it reinforces the principle that an injunction cannot be used to protect unlawful possession.

Key Takeaways

• A person who loses a title dispute cannot obtain an injunction against the true owner of the property.
• An injunction cannot be used to protect unlawful possession.
• The relief of permanent injunction is a consequential relief and not a substantive one, when it is tied to a title dispute.
• The concept of “due process of law” is satisfied when the rights of the parties are adjudicated upon by a competent court.
• Revenue records are important evidence in determining ownership and possession.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court. The suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against the defendant was dismissed. Consequently, the entire suit filed by the plaintiff stood dismissed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person who has lost a title dispute cannot obtain an injunction against the true owner of the property. This judgment clarifies the position of law regarding the maintainability of an injunction against a true owner of the property, when the person seeking the injunction has lost the title dispute. This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing valid title before seeking an injunction to protect possession.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai clarifies that a person who has lost a title dispute cannot be granted an injunction against the true owner of the property. The Court emphasized that an injunction is a consequential relief tied to the title dispute and cannot be used to protect unlawful possession. This decision reinforces the importance of establishing valid title and clarifies the limitations on granting injunctions against true owners.