PREMJI RATANSEY SHAH AND ORS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 22-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PREMJI RATANSEY SHAH AND ORS .. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JULY 22, 1994 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 4J(j) Injunction-Grant o~Whether 
discretionary and equitable relief-l'laintiff must have personal interest-Right 
not in existence cannot be protected by injunction-Injunction cannot be is-
sued against true owner or in favour of a tres-passer. 
Certain lands were acquired for the railways. The award given by the 
Collector became final and the possession of the land was also banded over 
A 
B 
c 
to the railways. As a result of these acquisition proceedings the original 
land owners were divested of their title and bad interest to alienate the 
land acquired. However the petitioners filed a suit for declaration that they D 
were successors in title to certain lands of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and 
for injunction not to interfere with their possession, Their case was that 
defendants No. 3 and 4 purchased the land from the original land owners 
under a sale-deed dated August 21, 1966 and that on January 21, 1973 the 
said defendants entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners and E 
also banded over the possession of the land to them. 
The Trial Court held that the petitioners were in possession of land 
but a Single judge of the High Court dismissed the petitioners' suit. The 
Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed the petitioner's appeal 
holding that possession was handed over to the railways and the railways 
had been in possession of the land. Against the decision of the High Court, 
Special Leave Petition was filed in this Court. 
Dismissing the petition, this court 
HELD : 1. Issuance of an order of injunction is absolutely a discre· 
tionary and equitable relief. In a given set ·or facts, injunction may be given 
to protect the possession of the owner or person in lawful possession. It is 
not mandatory that for mere asking such relief should be given. Injunc· 
!ion is a personal right under Sedion 41G) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; 
F 
G 
the plaintiff must have personal interest in the matter. The interest or H 
117 
118 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
right not shown to be in existence, cannot be protected by injunction. 
[120-F·G] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
2. It is equally settled law that injunction would not be issued against 
the true owner. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly rejected the relief 
of declaration and injunction in favour of the petitioners who have no 
interest in the property . Even assuming that they had auy possession, 
their possession is wholly unlawful possession of a trespasser and an 
injunction cannot be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who 
gained unlawful possession, as against the owner. Pretext of dispute of 
identity of the land should not be an excuse to claim injunction against 
true owner under these circumstances, there is no ground warranting 
interference with the judgments and decrees of the Court below. 
[120-G-H; 121-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No. 
10792 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.94 of the Bombay High 
Court in Appeal No. 457 of 1992. 
Ashok H. Desai, P.H. Parekh, K.V. Shah, Takker and S.Uday Sangal 
for the Petitioners. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below are the 
petitioners. Their suit for declaration that the appellants are successors in 
title to certain land of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Sule and 
F 
Thakkar, who were said to be its owners, which formed a portion of land 
admeasuring 33 acres 2 guntas in Survey No. 103Npt. at Kiral and for 
injunction not to interfere with their possession etc., was dismissed by a 
Single Judge sitting on the original side of the Bombay High Court. A 
Division Bench of the same Court dismissed the appeal No. 557/92 of the 
petitioner·by the impugned judgment and decree dated January 31, 1994. 
G The facts not in dispute are that a Notification under Section 4(1) of the 
land Acquisition Act, 1894, was initially published on May, 4, 1959 propos-
ing acquisition of 48.26 acres of land in Survey No. 103A invoking the 
urgency clause under Section 17. The enquiry under Section 5-A was 
dispensed .with. A declaration under Section 6 was followed. Thereafter, 
H 
another notification was issued on May 28, 1959 under Section 4(1) of the 
P.R. SHAH v. U.0.1. 
119 
Act acquiring 13 acres and 33 guntas in Surve

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