PADHIYAR PRAHLADJI CHENAJI (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.S versus MANIBEN JAGMALBHAI (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.S AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 03-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 455
455
PADHIYAR PRAHLADJI CHENAJI (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.S
v.
MANIBEN JAGMALBHAI (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.S
AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ]
Permanent Injunction – Registered Sale Deed – Suit seeking
cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanant injunction –
Trial court partly allowed the suit by granting the relief of permanent
injunction and refusing the relief of cancellation of the sale deed
and declaration – First Appellate Court upheld the same – High
Court dismissed the appeal holding that the relief of permanent
injunction sought by the original plaintiff can be said to be
substantive relief and not a consequential relief and therefore, the
trial court was justified in granting the permanent injunction in
favour of the plaintiff as the plaintiff was/is found to be in possession
of the suit property – Hence instant appeal – Held: The main reliefs
sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed
and declaration – The prayer of permanent injunction restraining
defendant from disturbing her possession can be said to be a
consequential relief – Once the suit is held to be barred by limitation
qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction
was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which
was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation
– An injunction is a consequential relief and in a suit for declaration
with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a suit for
declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further
relief – Whether the further relief claimed has, in a particular case
as consequential upon a declaration is adequate must always
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Where
once a suit is held not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be
granted. Injunction may be granted even against the true owner of
the property, only when the person seeking the relief is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the property and also legally entitled to
be in possession, not to disposes him, except in due process of law –
Once the rights of the parties are adjudicated and the defendant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
No.1 is held to be the true owner on the basis of the registered sale
deed and on payment of full sale consideration, it can be said that
due process of law has been followed and thereafter the plaintiff is
not entitled to any permanent injunction against the true owner.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. From the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not properly
appreciated the distinction between a substantive relief and a
consequential relief. The High Court has observed that in the
instant case the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be a
substantive relief, which is clearly an erroneous view. The main
reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the
sale deed and declaration and the prayer of permanent injunction
restraining defendant No.1 from disturbing her possession can
be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the title to the
property was the basis of the relief of possession. If that be so, in
the present case, the relief for permanent injunction can be said
to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief as
observed and held by the High Court. Therefore, once the plaintiff
has failed to get any substantive relief of cancellation of the sale
deed and failed to get any declaratory relief – Relief of injunction
can be said to be a consequential relief. Therefore, the prayer for
permanent injunction must fail. In the instant case as the plaintiff
cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land, i.e., the
possession of the plaintiff is “not legal or authorised by the law”,
the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any permanent injunction.
[Para 11][469-B-F]
 Dilboo vs. Dhanraji (2000) 7 SCC 702 : [2000] 3
Suppl. SCR 214; Jharkhand State Housing Board vs.
Didar Singh and Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 692; A.
Subramanian vs. R. Pannerselvam (2021) 3 SCC 675 –
relied on.
2. An injunction is a consequential relief and in a suit for
declaration with a consequential relief of injunction, it is not a
suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a
further relief. Whether the further relief claimed has, in a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
457

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