Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012517-012517 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 31579/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court injunction against alienation; limits injunction against interference |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Property Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that a Will dated 30.09.1985 was duly proved by oral testimony confirming the testator’s signature. However, where the defendant’s possession is admitted in pleadings and evidence, a declaration of title or recovery of possession is a prerequisite to seek an injunction simpliciter restraining interference with peaceful enjoyment. An injunction against alienation remains permissible pending adjudication of title, as the defendant has not sought a counter-declaration or partition. Given the absence of relief for declaration or possession, the grant of injunction against interference was curtailed. Parties are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for declaration of title and consequential possession within three months, which shall be heard afresh without being bound by present findings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that injunction simpliciter restraining interference with peaceful enjoyment cannot be granted when the defendant’s possession is openly admitted and no declaration of title or recovery of possession is sought.
- Confirms that an injunction against alienation of the property remains maintainable pending resolution of title, even absent a claim for possession.
- Emphasises the necessity for parties relying on a Will to include a prayer for declaration of title or recovery of possession if they seek an injunction against interference.
- Highlights that ill-drafted pleadings and clear admissions by a party can substantially limit equitable relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The trial court correctly accepted Ex. A6 Will dated 30.09.1985 as proved by oral evidence from PW1 and PW2.
- The plaintiff’s own pleadings and testimony admitted that the defendant occupied the suit property as tenant and claimed co-ownership, without seeking recovery of possession.
- Under settled principles of injunction, a plaintiff must establish both right and possession; where possession is admitted with no prayer for recovery, an injunction restraining interference is not permissible.
- An injunction against alienation is justified pending final determination of title, since the defendant did not seek a counter-declaration or partition.
- Because neither party secured a declaration of title or possession order, the Court reserved liberty to file a fresh suit within three months for those reliefs, to be adjudicated independently.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Legal heirs of the defendant)
- The defendant and successors have been in continuous possession as tenants or co-owners, which the plaintiff admitted.
- The suit lacked any prayer for declaration of title or recovery of possession, rendering injunction simpliciter inappropriate.
- An agreement dated 1983 (Ex. B1) had already partitioned the property among the brothers.
Respondent (Plaintiff)
- The suit concerned only the dry land of 1.74½ acres bequeathed by Will dated 30.09.1985.
- The defendant was inducted as a tenant by the testator; title and possession follow from a proved Will.
Factual Background
In 2003 the plaintiff sued her brother for injunction simpliciter to restrain alienation and interference with her claimed half-share (0.87¼ acres) of property bequeathed by their father’s Will of 1985. The defendant admitted possession as tenant (and later co-owner). The trial court proved the Will and granted both injunctions; the appellate court dismissed the suit; the High Court restored the trial court’s decree. Before the Supreme Court, the validity of the Will was upheld, but the grant of injunction against interference was found improper absent declaration of title or recovery of possession.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed