Supreme Court Upholds Injunction Based on Possession: Sunkamma vs. S. Pushparaj (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2017

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and R. Banumathi, J.

Can a person be granted an injunction to protect their possession of a property even if they don’t have a registered sale deed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a dispute over two adjacent plots of land. The core issue was whether the High Court was right in granting a permanent injunction based on a General Power of Attorney and evidence of possession, despite the absence of a registered sale deed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice R. Banumathi, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute in Dodda Banasawadi Village, Bangalore, involving two adjacent sites: site no. 47 and site no. 53. The appellants (defendants) were the original owners of a larger piece of land. In 1975, they sold 39 guntas of this land to Madhavan Pillai. Madhavan Pillai then created a layout plan, dividing the land into plots, including sites 47 and 53. The respondent (plaintiff) claimed ownership and possession of both sites, leading to a legal battle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The plaintiff initially filed a suit (O.S. No. 424 of 1995) seeking a permanent injunction to protect their possession of both site no. 47 and site no. 53. The trial court partly decreed the suit, granting an injunction for site no. 53 but dismissing it for site no. 47. The trial court held that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property in site no.53 and granted permanent injunction. The trial court declined to accept the claim of plaintiff with respect to site no.47 because the plaintiff’s case was not supported by a registered sale deed. Aggrieved, both parties appealed to the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal regarding site no. 47, noting that the trial court had failed to consider the testimony of Madhavan Pillai (PW2) and the registered general power of attorney. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

Legal Framework

The core legal principle in this case revolves around the concept of “lawful possession” in suits for permanent injunction. The Supreme Court noted that in a suit for permanent injunction, the primary consideration is whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the property, not necessarily whether they hold title. The Court also considered the implications of a General Power of Attorney in the context of property rights, particularly when a registered sale deed is absent. The court also considered the fact that the appellants/defendants had filed a separate suit for declaration of ownership, which was dismissed by the trial court.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The appellants contended that site no. 47 was not covered under the sale deed in favor of Madhavan Pillai.
• They argued that a General Power of Attorney could not transfer title or ownership of immovable property (site no. 47) to the plaintiff.
• The appellants claimed that the agreement of sale (09.09.1986) and the general power of attorney (03.05.1988) relied upon by the plaintiff were forged.
• The appellants went to the extent of denying the identity of Madhavan Pillai (PW2).

Respondent’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that they had purchased site no. 53 through a registered sale deed from Madhavan Pillai.
• The respondent claimed that they had an agreement to purchase site no. 47 from Madhavan Pillai, and had paid the full consideration.
• The respondent stated that due to a ban on registration of revenue sites, Madhavan Pillai executed a registered general power of attorney in their favor for site no. 47.
• The respondent argued that they were in peaceful possession of both sites no. 47 and 53.
• The plaintiff relied on the testimony of Madhavan Pillai (PW2) who confirmed the sale agreement and execution of the general power of attorney.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the High Court was correct in granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff for site no. 47, based on a registered general power of attorney and evidence of possession, despite the absence of a registered sale deed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its judgment. The Court primarily focused on the factual aspects of the case and the principle that a suit for permanent injunction is decided based on lawful possession, not necessarily ownership.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court did not cite any specific authorities. It relied on the principle that in a suit for permanent injunction, the focus is on “lawful possession” rather than “ownership”.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that in a suit for permanent injunction, the focus is on “lawful possession” rather than “ownership.” The Court emphasized that the High Court’s findings of fact, based on the General Power of Attorney and the testimony of Madhavan Pillai (PW2), were sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s possession of site no. 47. The Court also considered that the defendants had failed to provide any evidence to support their claims that the documents were forged. The Court noted that the defendants had filed a separate suit for declaration of ownership, and hence, it refrained from expressing any opinion on the question of title. The court’s focus was on upholding the High Court’s decision based on the evidence presented in the injunction suit.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the suit was for permanent injunction where “lawful possession,” not “ownership,” is the primary consideration. The Court noted the High Court’s reliance on the general power of attorney and the testimony of PW2, and held that the High Court’s findings of fact did not warrant interference. The Court refrained from commenting on the issue of title, as a separate suit for declaration of ownership was pending. The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that in a suit for permanent injunction, the focus is on the plaintiff’s possession and not necessarily on their title. The court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that the defendants had failed to provide any evidence to support their claims that the documents were forged. The court also considered that the appellants/defendants had filed a separate suit for declaration of ownership, and hence, it refrained from expressing any opinion on the question of title and ownership of respondent/plaintiff on the basis of registered general power of attorney.

The court stated, “The present appeal arises out of the suit filed by plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction and the courts below rightly decided the same on the question of possession.”

The court also noted, “Based on the general power of attorney and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the High Court rightly held that the plaintiff is in possession and we do not find any reason warranting interference.”

The court further stated, “We refrain from going into the merits of this contention for two reasons. Firstly, since the present suit and further appeal thereon emanates from the suit pertaining to permanent injunction where the touchstone upon which the suit has to be decided is ‘lawful possession’ and not ‘ownership’. Secondly, appellants/defendants have filed separate suit in O.S.No.5327 of 1995 against Madhavan Pillai and the respondents, for a declaration that appellants are the owners of ‘B’ Schedule property thereon (which includes site no.47) and other reliefs.”

Key Takeaways

• In suits for permanent injunction, “lawful possession” is the primary consideration, not necessarily “ownership.”
• A General Power of Attorney, along with evidence of possession, can be sufficient to grant an injunction, even without a registered sale deed.
• Courts will not interfere with the findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse.
• The issue of title can be decided in a separate suit, and the court will not express any opinion on the same in a suit for injunction.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in a suit for permanent injunction, the court will primarily focus on “lawful possession” rather than “ownership.” This case reinforces the principle that a person in settled possession of a property can be protected by an injunction, even if they do not have a registered sale deed. This judgment clarifies that the courts will not interfere with the findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse. This case does not change the previous position of the law, but reinforces the settled legal position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff for site no. 47. The Court emphasized that the suit was for permanent injunction where “lawful possession” is the primary consideration. The Court noted the High Court’s reliance on the general power of attorney and the testimony of PW2, and held that the High Court’s findings of fact did not warrant interference. The Court refrained from commenting on the issue of title, as a separate suit for declaration of ownership was pending.