⚖️ SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [2008]

• “Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, 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 with a consequential injunction.
• Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.”

Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of Rajasthan Judicial Service (RJS), DJS, PCS (J) and other Judicial Services throughout India a very important judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy [2008] bringing out the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property.

📜 ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P. BUCHI REDDY [2008 SC]

J U D G M E N T

(i) Scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property

• Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
• Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter without claiming the relief of possession.
• Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession.

Where the property is a building or building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, such as agricultural land, possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.

Summary of Principles

• Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, 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 with a consequential injunction.
• Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
• For injunction simpliciter, the issue of title normally will not be directly considered. The prayer for injunction is decided with reference to possession.
• Findings on title can only be recorded if necessary pleadings and issues regarding title exist.
• Courts may refer parties to a comprehensive suit for declaration if the issue of title is complex.
• Persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction should not be forced to file a declaratory suit due to vexatious claims by third parties.