If Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed, Simpliciter For Injunction Without Claiming Declaration Of Title Is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court stated that a suit simpliciter for a permanent injunction without demanding declaration of title could only be maintained if the plaintiff’s title is clear and unclouded. If the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court must relegate the parties to the remedy of a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, rather than deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction, according to the bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai. The Trial Court granted a perpetual injunction against the defendants, in this case of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs M. Mallappa LL 2021 SC 423, preventing them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants’ appeal to the Karnataka High Court was dismissed, with the court ruling that the claim simpliciter for a perpetual injunction without a declaration of title was not tenable. The bench noted that in the preceding instance, it was held that if the plaintiff’s title is clear and unclouded, a claim for injunction might be decided based on the possession determination, it held: “It   could   thus   be   seen   that   this   Court   in unequivocal terms has held that where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession.  It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.” Similar findings were made by the same panel in dismissing an appeal filed against a Kerala High Court verdict that raised the same legal difficulties.
By the present appeal the appellant­plaintiff challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 M. Mallappa LL 2021 SC 423 The facts in brief giving rise to the present The plaintiff­appellant before this Court filed a restraining them or anybody claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. His case is that he has purchased the suit schedule property from one Shri K.P. Govinda Reddy he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit a civil contractor is using the same for storing building depositing the title deed of the suit property. It is his further case that since the defendants attempted to LL 2021 SC 423 defendant No.1 The Bangalore Section 64 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976. It is its further case that the khata issued in the The defendant No.2­M. Mallappa also resisted the claim of the plaintiff­ appellant. It is his case that he had purchased the suit vendor of the plaintiff­appellant had no right title and LL 2021 SC 423 interest to sell the suit schedule property in favour the It is his case that entire Survey No.37 sold plots in the said Survey number to different persons since the plot was under reconveyance scheme. It is his On the basis of the rival pleadings the learned “1. Does the plaintiff prove his lawful Does he prove this alleged Is he entitled to a decree of LL 2021 SC 423 Being aggrieved thereby defendant No.2 i.e The learned single judge of the Karnataka High the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without Being aggrieved thereby the present appeal by Shri Ajit Bhasme learned Senior Counsel LL 2021 SC 423 that the learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court has grossly erred in interfering with the well­reasoned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned trial Court relying upon the voluminous documentary evidence in Writ Petition No.38853 of 1999 the learned Senior another learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 defendant No.2) on the contrary would submit that the LL 2021 SC 423 Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the sale­deed of the The short question that falls for consideration Whether the learned single judge of the High Court was right in holding that the suit simpliciter for as filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable The issue is no more res integra. The position 14 SCC 594 LL 2021 SC 423 a) Where a cloud is raised over the sion a suit for declaration and possession sion with a consequential injunction concerned only with possession normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for in­ junction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases consideration as without a finding thereon c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction unless there are necessary pleadings and appro­ or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu The­ regarding title are absent in a plaint and LL 2021 SC 423 volves complicated questions of fact and stead of deciding the issue in a suit for if the matter involved is simple and sion suing for injunction should not be driven to the costlier and more cumber­ some remedy of a suit for declaration merely because some meddler vexatiously where it will enquire into title and cases It could thus be seen that this Court in LL 2021 SC 423 questions of fact and law relating to title the court will No doubt this Court has held that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate matter involved is simple and straightforward the court injunction. However it has been held that such cases are the suit property on the basis of a sale­deed executed by one K.P. Govinda Reddy in his favour on 13.4.1992. In turn according to him the said property was sold by one LL 2021 SC 423 to the plaintiff­appellant when the Bangalore Mahanagar herein) is specifically denying the title of the plaintiff­ the basis of a sale­deed dated 5.4.1984 from one M and enjoyment of the same on the basis of the said sale­ possession. It is also his case that compound wall was It could thus clearly be seen that this is not a title over the suit property or that there is no cloud on LL 2021 SC 423 plaintiff­appellant’s title over the suit property. The question involved is one which requires adjudication after the evidence is led and questions of fact and law are In that view of the matter we do not find any learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court dated of the above that any entry made in the Corporation Register misrepresentation or suppression of facts or by furnishing false incorrect and incomplete material could be corrected the period of limitation prescribed by the provision extracted above. The same is therefore unsustainable on that ground the controversy regarding the title to the LL 2021 SC 423 more than a fiscal entry relevant only for by itself create or extinguish title to the such time the competent Court declared own correct the entry after a period of 3 years stipulated under Sec. 114­A of the This writ petition accordingly succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order shall stand quashed entry modification of the existing entry to bring the same in consonance with the litigation before the Civil Court and that adjudication of done only by the Civil Court. The entry with the Corporation is nothing more than a fiscal entry relevant LL 2021 SC 423 the third respondent therein as the true owner of the A of the Act. The High Court has therefore set aside the order reserving liberty for the parties to have the matter It will also be relevant to refer to the following not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and 217 SCC 692 LL 2021 SC 423 from cloud. The issue with regard to title can be decided that would be led by the parties in support of their rival LL 2021 SC 423