Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Based on Established Possession: A.Subramanian vs. R. Pannerselvam (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 08 February 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 57

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., and M.R. Shah, J.

Can a person obtain an injunction to protect their possession of a property even if their ownership is not definitively proven? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a property dispute case, focusing on whether established possession alone can be a sufficient basis for granting an injunction. The Court examined the interplay between possession, title, and prior litigation in determining the outcome of the case. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a property measuring 1777-1/2 sq.ft. in Kalappanaickenpatti Village. The plaintiff, R. Pannerselvam, claimed to have purchased the property from the descendants of one Dhasi Naidu, who had originally owned it. Dhasi Naidu’s son, Krishnasamy Naidu, had entrusted the property to Ghani Sahib. Pannerselvam purchased the property through a registered sale deed on 16.07.2001. The defendants, A.Subramanian and his son-in-law, attempted to disturb Pannerselvam’s possession, leading to the filing of the suit.

The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the sale deed was fabricated and that the legal heirs of Dhasi Naidu were fictitious. They claimed that Dhasi Naidu’s son, Sanjeevi Naidu, had entrusted the property to P. Rangaraju Naidu, whose legal heirs were the actual owners. The defendants had previously filed a suit against Ghani Sahib, which was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding that he had proven his right and possession over the property. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision, questioning the validity of the power of attorney and sale deed. The First Appellate Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish his title over the suit property. The High Court, in second appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s decree, holding that the plaintiff’s possession was admitted and the First Appellate Court should not have delved into the validity of the documents.

Legal Framework

The primary legal issue revolves around the maintainability of a suit for permanent injunction based solely on possession, without a declaration of title. The court considered the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner. The court also considered the previous litigation between the parties, specifically the dismissal of the defendant’s suit for declaration and possession in O.S. No. 524 of 1987.

The court referred to the principle that a person in established possession can obtain an injunction, even if they are a trespasser. However, this principle does not apply if the plaintiff narrates a title dispute in the plaint and fails to seek a declaration of title along with the injunction.

The court also considered Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with suits for recovery of possession. However, the court noted that this section was not applicable as the plaintiff was not claiming to have been dispossessed by the defendant.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Defendants):

• The plaintiff’s claim is based on a sale deed dated 16.07.2001, which is invalid because it was not executed with a proper power of attorney from the heirs of Dhasi Naidu.
• The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case.
• Even if the defendants failed to prove their title and possession, the plaintiff’s suit should not have been decreed solely on that basis.
• The trial court and High Court did not consider the documents filed by the defendants.

Arguments of the Respondent (Plaintiff):

• The plaintiff has successfully proven his possession, which was admitted by the defendant.
• The plaintiff has also successfully proven his title through a registered sale deed based on a power of attorney executed by the legal heirs of Dhasi Naidu.
• The First Appellate Court erred in questioning the validity of the power of attorney, which was prepared in Sri Lanka and registered in Namakkal.
• The plaintiff demolished an old structure on the property, which proves his possession.
• The defendant’s previous suit for declaration and recovery of possession against Ghani Sahib was dismissed, which means the defendant has no right to resist the plaintiff’s suit.

The appellants argued that the plaintiff’s case was weak due to the questionable validity of the sale deed and that the plaintiff could not simply rely on the weakness of the defendant’s case. The respondent countered that his possession was established and admitted by the defendant, and that the defendant’s previous failed litigation barred them from claiming possession.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section, but the core issue revolved around:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction based on the established possession of the plaintiff, without going into the question of title.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander and others, AIR 1968 SC 1165 – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner.
• Parry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73 – The Judicial Committee affirmed that a person in possession of land as an owner has a good title against all but the rightful owner.

Cases Distinguished by the Court:

• Nagar Palika, Jind vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426 – This case was distinguished because it involved a suit where the plaintiff’s title and possession were denied, and the court had to consider the title.
• Ajendra Prasadji Narendra Prasadji Pandey vs. Swami K. Narayandasji and others, (2005)10 SCC 11 – This case was distinguished as it pertained to the cumulative factors for granting a temporary injunction.
• Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through Legal Representatives and another vs. Shivnath and others, (2019) 6 SCC 82 – This case was distinguished as it involved a suit for declaration of title and possession, where the plaintiff had to succeed on the strength of their own title.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – The court noted that this section was not applicable as the plaintiff was not claiming to have been dispossessed by the defendant.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander and others, AIR 1968 SC 1165: The court followed this authority to reiterate the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner.
• Parry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73: The court approved the dictum in this case, which stated that a person in possession of land as an owner has a good title against all but the rightful owner.
• Nagar Palika, Jind vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426: The court distinguished this case, stating that it was not applicable to the present situation as the plaintiff’s title and possession were denied in that case.
• Ajendra Prasadji Narendra Prasadji Pandey vs. Swami K. Narayandasji and others, (2005)10 SCC 11: The court distinguished this case as it related to temporary injunctions, not permanent injunctions.
• Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through Legal Representatives and another vs. Shivnath and others, (2019) 6 SCC 82: The court distinguished this case, stating that it was a suit for declaration of title and possession, and the plaintiff had to succeed on the strength of their own title.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the established possession of the plaintiff and the fact that the defendant had previously failed in a suit for declaration and possession of the same property. The court emphasized that the plaintiff’s possession was not only admitted by the defendant but also supported by the fact that the plaintiff had demolished the old structure on the property. The court also highlighted that the defendant had failed to prove their own title or possession in the previous litigation. These factors weighed heavily in the court’s decision to uphold the injunction in favor of the plaintiff.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the factual aspects of the case, particularly the established possession of the plaintiff and the defendant’s previous failed litigation. While legal principles were considered, the factual context played a more significant role in the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the need for a declaration of title in a suit for injunction. However, the court rejected this interpretation because the plaintiff’s possession was admitted and the defendant had previously lost a suit for declaration and possession of the same property. The court reached the final decision by focusing on the established possession of the plaintiff and the prior litigation involving the defendant.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justices R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The decision implies that in cases where a plaintiff’s possession is clearly established and admitted by the defendant, the court may grant an injunction to protect that possession without delving into complex questions of title, especially if the defendant has previously lost a case concerning the same property.

“The plaintiff in his plaint claimed title and possession, and sought restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.”

“The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction.”

“We do not find any error in the view of the High Court that it was not necessary to enter into the validity of Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff.”

Key Takeaways

• Established possession can be a sufficient basis for granting a permanent injunction, even if the plaintiff’s title is not definitively proven.
• A defendant who has previously lost a suit for declaration and possession of the same property may be barred from contesting the plaintiff’s possession in a subsequent suit for injunction.
• Courts may not need to delve into complex questions of title in cases where the plaintiff’s possession is clearly admitted or established and the defendant has lost a previous case concerning the same property.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving property disputes. It reinforces the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner and highlights the importance of establishing possession in cases where title is disputed. It also suggests that courts may prioritize established possession over complex title issues, especially when the defendant has previously failed in litigation concerning the same property.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a suit for permanent injunction can be decreed based on the established possession of the plaintiff, without delving into the complexities of title, especially when the defendant has previously failed in litigation concerning the same property. This judgment reinforces the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner. There is no change in the previous position of law but the application of law has been clarified.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s established possession, coupled with the defendant’s previous failed litigation, was sufficient to warrant the injunction. The judgment reinforces the principle that possession is a strong basis for legal protection, especially when the defendant has no superior claim.