SUNKAMMA (D) BY LRS. versus S. PUSHPARAJ (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2017] 14 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 14-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017) 14 S.C.R. 488 
SUNKAMMA (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
S. PUSHPARAJ (D) BY LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2225 of2007) 
DECEMBER 14,2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Possession - Law.fit! possession of property - Appellants/ 
defendants disputed the title and possession of the plaintiff over 
C suit property-site 110.47 - Respondent/plaintiff claimed the 
possession over the suit property by virtue of agreement of sale 
with PW-2 and registered general power of attorney executed in his 
favour by PW-2 - Trial court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff to 
restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful 
possession o,fproperty - However, High Court accepted the claim 
D of plaintiff's possession - Held: Appellants have mereZv averred 
that the documents i.e. agreement of sale and registered general 
power of attorney are forged and not acceptable - Nothing further 
has been elicited from PW-2 to show that he had no right to sell suit 
property-site no.47 to the plaintiff - Plaintiff only sought for 
E permanent injunction before the Courts below in which he is only 
requil'ed to prove that he is in /av.fit! possession of the suit property 
- The findings of the High court based upon the general power of 
attorney and the evidence of PW-2 favouring plaintiff that he is in 
possessio/1' of suit property-site no.47. cannot be said to be perverse 
warranting interference. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Though the appellants/defendants disputed the 
title and possession of the plaintiff over site no.47, the defendants 
have merely averred that the documents relied upon by the 
plaintiff that is agreement of sale and general power of attorney 
G are forged and not acceptable. Nothing further has been elicited 
from PW2 fo show that he had no right to sell site no.47 to the 
plaintiff. The defendants went to the extent of denying the identity 
of PW-2. Be it noted, the plaintiff's suit was only for permanent 
injunction in which the plaintiff is only required to prove that he 
H 
488 
SUNKAMMA (D) BY LRS. v. S. PUSHPARAJ (D) BY LRS. 
489 
is in lawful possession of the suit property. The High Court based A 
upon the general power of attorney and the evidence of PW2 
held in favour of plaintiff that he is in possession of site no.47. 
These findings of fact cannot be said to be perverse warranting 
interference. [Para 6](491-G-H; 492-A-B) 
2. Contention of appellants/defendants is that site no.47 is 
B 
not covered under sale deed dated 21.04.1975 in favour of PW-2 
vide which defendant had sold land to PW-2. Further, contention 
of appellants is that merely on the basis of registered power of 
attorney, title and ownership of immovable property (site no.47) 
could not have been transferred to the plaintiff. 
The Court is 
refraining from going into the merits of this contention for two 
C 
reasons. Firstly, since the present suit and further appeal thereon 
emanates from the suit pertaining to permanent injunction where 
the touchstone upon which the suit has to be decided is "lawful 
possession" and not "ownership". Secondly, appellants/ 
defendants have filed separate suit against PW-2 and the D 
respondents, for a declaration that appellants are the owners of 
'B' Schedule property thereon (which includes site no.47) and 
other reliefs. It is clear from the additional documents filed, the 
said suit has been dismissed against which an appeal is said to 
have been filed and pending. Therefore, Court not to express 
E 
any opinion on the question of title and ownership of respondent/ 
plaintiff on the basis of registered general power of attorney. [Para 
7)(492-C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2225 
of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2006 of the High 
Court of Kamataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No.1100/2003 connected 
with R.F.A. No.l 083/2003. 
F 
P.S. Dutta, Sr. Adv., Karunakar Mahalik, B. Vishwanath 
.Bhandarkar, Priyang Nath i;hukla, V.N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the 
G 
'Appellant. 
:· 
Shailesh Madiyal, Mahesh Thakur, Sudhanshu, Advs. for the 
Respondent. 
H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the common 
judgment of the High Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore dated24.08.2006 
in and by which the High Court allowed RF.A. No.1100 of2003 preferred 
by respondent No. I/ plaintiff thereby decreeing the suit for permanent 
B injunction in respect of sit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.