Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014824-014824 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 4709/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both judges concurred |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court’s First Appeal decision; affirms the trial court’s dismissal of the suit |
| Type of Law | Civil law – property injunction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The plaintiffs failed to establish title and did not comply with conditions in the original sale agreement (no building was constructed within two years). The acquisition of the originally allotted land was set aside, voiding the allotment. A rectification deed executed after twenty years without stated grounds is invalid. The unverified BDA survey letter lacked authentication and the surveyor was not examined, making it inadmissible. As the scheduled property was not identified by metes and bounds or through a court-appointed commissioner, the trial court rightly dismissed the injunction suit. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The BDA acquired land in Survey Nos.349/1 & 350/12, allotted it to respondents’ father in 1993, and a sale deed was executed in 2003. Acquisition was later set aside in writ proceedings. Respondents sought injunction over Site No.66 after a rectification deed altered survey numbers to 350/9–11; the trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove title or identify the property, but the High Court reversed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Overrules | The High Court’s First Appeal judgment granting the injunction |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Parties must strictly prove title and satisfy specific conditions of allotment agreements before seeking injunction.
- Rectification deeds executed decades after the original transaction, without stated grounds, cannot underpin a suit for injunction.
- Unauthenticated survey letters or documents, with no seal or oath and without examination of the author, are inadmissible.
- Courts will require clear identification of property by metes and bounds or via a court-appointed commissioner before granting an injunction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The trial court found no compliance with clause requiring construction within two years and no valid sale deed execution pre-conditions met.
- Acquisition of the originally allotted land was quashed in writ proceedings, nullifying the allotment on which plaintiffs’ title rested.
- The rectification deed made after twenty years, without explanation of error, lacked validity; properties in new survey numbers were neither owned by respondents nor identified.
- The High Court’s reliance on a BDA survey letter (Exhibit P-24) was misplaced: it bore no seal, the surveyor was not examined, and no clear boundaries were specified.
- Without proper identification or proof of title, the plaintiffs could not obtain a permanent injunction; the High Court’s reversal was set aside and the trial court’s dismissal restored.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants):
- The BDA acquisition of Survey Nos.349/1 & 350/12 was set aside; thus allotment to respondents’ father was void.
- The rectification deed executed after two decades is unreasonable and unsubstantiated.
- The survey letter produced lacks authentication (no seal/signature), and the surveyor was not examined.
Respondents:
- Their father purchased the property at a BDA auction in 1993 and held possession.
- A BDA survey located Site No.66 in Survey Nos.350/9–11 as per the rectified deed.
- Adjacent property (also theirs) confirms continuity of possession; High Court rightly granted injunction.
Factual Background
Respondents’ father acquired a site (Site No.66) in 1993 under a BDA auction agreement (Survey Nos.349/1 & 350/12) with a binding condition to build within two years. A sale deed followed in 2003. Subsequent writ proceedings nullified the acquisition. Respondents then relied on a rectification deed (2012) shifting the site to Survey Nos.350/9–11 and sought an injunction against appellants’ interference. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to prove title or identify the property; the High Court reversed, prompting this appeal.
Alert Indicators
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – This Supreme Court decision overrules the High Court’s First Appeal judgment.