Relief Of Permanent Injunction Against True Owner Cannot Be Granted When Title Dispute Is Settled Against Plaintiff: Supreme Court: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (D) Vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (D)

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY:
Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (D) v Maniben Jagmalbhai (D)

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
3rd March 2022

JUDGES:
M.R. Shah, J.
B.V. Nagarathna, J

PARTIES:
Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji(Deceased) Through L.R.s (Appellants)
Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Ors.(Respondent)

SUBJECT

The Supreme Court observes that in a case where there is a cloud on the title of a Suit Property, the plaintiff may succeed in getting the injunction even by filing a simple suit for a permanent injunction. However, the relief of permanent injunction against the true owner cannot be granted when a title dispute is settled against the plaintiff.

AN OVERVIEW

1. The deceased husband of Respondent No. 1 had executed a Sale Deed favoring the Appellant by which the disputed suit property was sold in 1975. The name of Respondent No. 1 was replaced with the name of the Appellant in Sale Deed and he owned the rights as the owner.
2. After the death of her husband in 1999, Respondent No. 1 had instituted a Civil Suitbefore the Trial Court seeking the relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed.
3. Respondent No. 1 had alleged that her husband was addicted to liquor and owing to financial problems, he had sold the suit property partially. The Appellant had fraudulently registered the sale deed for the entire suit property.
4. The Trial Court had declined from granting the relief of cancellation of the sale deed to Respondent No. 1 and had observed that the Appellant had purchased the entire suit property. The Trial Court, however, held that Respondent No. 1 was in possession of thesuit property and granted the relief of permanent injunction.
5. The appeal of the Appellant against the decree of the permanent injunction of the trial court was dismissed by First Appellate Court.
6. The second appeal before the High Court also stood dismissed on the ground that the relief of permanent injunction granted to the Respondent No. 1 was consequential relief and the Trial Court was justified in granting the permanent injunction

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

Specific Relief Act 1963:

• Article 38- Outlines when the perpetual injunction can be granted
• Article 42- Outlines when the injunction can be refused

ISSUES

1. 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
2. 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a relief of permanent injunction against the true owner?

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. It was pointed by the Counsel for the Appellant that the suit for permanent injunction was barred by law of limitation. In Dilboo Vs. Dhanraji, it was held where the dispute regarding the suit being filed beyond the period of limitation arose, the plaintiff had to aver and prove that the suit was within the prescribed period of limitation. When the averment or proof showing that the suit was within the time was absent, the plaintiff would fail.
2. It was further laid down that for the matter relating to the period of limitation, the date of registration of the document would be the date of deemed knowledge. In cases where a fact could be discovered by due diligence, the deemed knowledge would be attributed to the plaintiff because a party was not allowed to extend the period of limitation by the mere claim of having no knowledge regarding the matter.
3. The Court had observed that Respondent No. 1 in the case would have known the fact that the Appellant was in the possession of the suit property if she had exercised due diligence. Therefore, it was held that Respondent No. 1 was said to have deemed knowledge of the title as well as possession of the Appellant over the Suit Property.
4. On the appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court had held that the husband of the Respondent No. 1 had executed the registered sale deed in favor of the Appellant and so the Appellant was the true owner of the Suit Property. Since Respondent No. 1 had not assailed the decision of the Trial Courts by filing an appeal, the decision had attained finality. Undoubtedly, Respondent No. 1 had lost so far as the title was concerned.
5. In A. Subramanian Vs. R. Pannerselvam, the Supreme Court had held that when the plaintiff had failed to get the declaratory relief and the dispute regarding the title had come to an end,the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction or protection to their possession against the rightful owner. In Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, it was held that in a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff had to establish that on the date of the suit, he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant had tried to interfere or disturb his possession.
6. The Supreme Court had observed that while passing the impugned judgment, the High Court had not properly appreciated the distinction between a substantive relief and a consequential relief. When the suit was held to be not maintainable, no relief of injunction could be granted. The injunction was granted against the true owner of the property, only when the person who sought the relief was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and was legally entitled to be in possession. Additionally, the plaintiff’s possession would not be disturbed except in the due process of law.

CONCLUSION

The Suit was held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief. It was held that Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the relief for permanent injunction as a consequential relief.The Apex Court had allowed the present appeal and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court and the High Court was quashed and set aside. The Trial Court’s relief for a permanent injunction against the Appellant was quashed.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement