ANATHULA SUDHAKAR versus P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 19 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~· 
.. 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 331 
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR . 
v. 
P. BUCH! REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001) 
MARCH 25, 2008 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Suit for prohibitory injunction - Relating to vacant land -
-Claim for possession based on title - Title of plaintiff disputed 
A 
B 
- Various complicated questions arose for putting forth a case c 
of title - Suit decreed by trial court- Reversed by first appellate 
court - High Court in second appeal after recording finding of 
facts restored the order of trial court - On appeal, held: In the 
facts and circumstances of the case, the questions which arose 
for consideration could be decided only in a suit for declaration 0 
and consequential reliefs and not in a suit for injunction 
simplicitor - In absence of prayer for declaration of title, issue 
regarding title, pleadings required for declaration of title, the 
parties cannot be said to have an opportunity to have · full 
fledged adjudication regarding title - High Court exceeded 
its jurisdiction uls 100 CPC in re-examining questions of fact, 
E 
by going into the questions which were not pleaded and not in 
issue, and by formulating questions of law which did not arise 
in the second appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. 
Suit for prohibitory injunction - Relating to immovable F 
Property - Scope of - Held: The prayer for injunction will be 
decided with reference to the finding on possession - In cases 
of vacant land, it will be necessary to examine and determine 
the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession - If 
the title is clear and simple, the court may decide the issue of G 
title - But, if a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title, a suit for 
declaration and possession, with or without a consequential 
injunction, is the remedy. 
Respondent/plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed a suit for 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant. 
They pleaded that they were owners in possession of the 
suit properties (vacant land) under sale deeds from 'R' 
(their vendor). They alleged that the defendant interfered 
with their possession. Defendant in his Written Statement 
B stated that the suit property was purchased by him from 
the brother of the plaintiffs' vendor under a registered sale 
deed and was put in possession of the property by his 
' . 
vendor and it were the plaintiffs who tried to interfere with 
his possession. Plaintiffs led evidence to the effect that 
c defendant's vendor had gifted the suit property to his 
sister in the year 1961 by way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam'. 
.0 
· Defendant and his v1mdor denied the plea of gift. Trial 
Court decreed the suit. First Appellate Court allowed the 
appeal of the defendant holding that defendant was in 
possession of the property and the plaintiff had not made 
out either title or possession over it; that mere suit for 
injunction was not maintainable and the suit should have 
be amended to one for declaration and injunction. High 
Court in second appeal, examining the evidence in detail, 
recorded the findings of facts and restored the judgment 
E and decree of trial court. It held that plaintiffs had 
established their title in respect of suit land and drew an 
inference that possession was presumed to be with them 
by applying the princ:iple of possession follows title; and 
that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to sue for 
· F declaration of title as the question of title could be 
examined incidental to the question of possession. Hence 
the present appeal. 
The questions which arose for consideration before 
G this Court were r1egarding the scope of a suit for 
prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property; 
whether plaintiffs were required to file a suit for declaration 
of title and injunction; and whether the High Court, in a 
second appeal, could examine the factual question of title 
which was not the subject matter of any issue and based 
H 
ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v. P. BUCH! REDDY (DEAD) 
333 
BY LRS. & ORS. 
on a finding thereon, reverse the decision of the first A 
appellate court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title 
and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration B 
and possession, with or without a consequential 
injl:Jnction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not 
in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, 
he has to sue for possession w

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