A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR. versus R. PANNERSELVAM

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 08-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
879
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 879
879
A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR.
v.
R. PANNERSELVAM
(Civil Appeal No. 9472 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 08, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Suit – For permanent injunction – Plaintiff-respondent filed
suit for permanent injunction interdicting the defendants-appellants
from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff
over suit property –Plaintiff’s case was that he had purchased
property from descendants of one ‘D’ and supported his claim with
power of attorney executed by legal heirs of ‘D’, sale deed dated
16.07.2001, sale deed dated 14.03.1946 in favour of ‘D’ and house
tax receipt dated 27.02.2001 –Defendant refuted the claim of
plaintiff – The trial Court held that the plaintiff has right over the
property, the possession of plaintiff was also found to be proved –
However, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff failed to establish title over the property –The High Court
found that earlier appellant-defendant had filed a suit for
declaration and recovery of possession of the same suit property
and it was dismissed by the trial Court and appeal was also dismissed
– So, the finality was achieved to the previous proceedings that
defendant had neither title nor was in possession of suit property –
The High Court after considering the same affirmed the decision of
the trial Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff – On
appeal, held: In the instant case, the present suit giving rise to this
appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather
the suit was filed for injunction – The High Court has given cogent
reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction
was maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff in
facts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigation
which was initiated at the instance of defendant where he lost the
suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property
– Therefore, the defendant cannot make a plea to be in possession
and also, when defendant had admitted that plaintiff was in
possession – The trial Court as well as the High Court has looked
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
into not only the oral evidence but the exhibits which were filed on
behalf of the defendant– Thus, there is no error in the judgment of
the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present case the possession of the plaintiff
was upheld by the High Court on two main reasons. Firstly, the
defendant of the suit, had earlier filed a suit for recovery of
possession and declaration for the same property against the
manager of the property which suit was dismissed and recovery
of possession having been rejected, defendant cannot even make
a plea to be in possession and secondly defendant in his cross-
examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had
demolished the construction. [Para 20][889-A-B]
2. The High Court was also right in its view that it is a
common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established
possession of the property could obtain injunction. However, the
matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the
plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration
of title along with injunction relief. The High Court has rightly
observed that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate
that the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute
obviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1
failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly observed
that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent
injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable
to the facts of the present case. [Para 21][889-G-H; 890-A]
3.In the present case the present suit giving rise to this
appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather
the suit was filed for injunction. As noted, the High Court has
given cogent reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff
for injunction was maintainable without entering into the title of
the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of the
previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant
No.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of
possession of the same property. The submission of the
appellants that evidence filed by the defendant were not looked
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.