- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v Maniben Jagmalbhai,quashing the impugned order passed by the High Court of Gujarat has held that permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff cannot be granted against the true owner of the property.
- The Trial Court has passed an order refusing to grant the relief of cancellation of the sale deed. On appeal, the High Court, affirming the order of the Tribunal, held that the Trial Court was justified in granting the permanent injunction in favour of the original petitioner (ie Defendant in the instant appeal).
- Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Plaintiff preferred the instant appeal.
- The Question before the Court was whether the plaintiff was entitled permanent injunction against the true owner when the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned when the true owner has to file a substantive suit claiming the possession.
- The Defendant’s husband, an alcoholic, sold a part of his property to the Plaintiff (1 acre). However, the Defendant has contended that the Plaintiff fraudulently got the sale deed registered of the entire suit property (~6 acres). She submitted that the Plaintiff handed over possession of only 1 acre and remined in possession of the remaining property.
- The Court remarked that since the Plaintiff’s prayer was for cancellation of the sale deed, the prayer of permanent injunction Is only a consequential relief and not a substantive relief.
- Allowing the appeal, the Court observed that once a suit is barred by limitation, and where the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, such relief can also said to be barred by limitation. However, in the case of a consequential relief, when the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the said principle shall not apply.
- The Court further observed that when the dispute as regards title was settled and held against the plaintiff, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. In such cases the plaintiff shall not be able to contend that despite having lost the case, the true owner shall be restrained from disturbing the former’s possession.
- The Court also remarked that a relief seeking injunction is a consequential relief and a suit for declaration with a consequential relief, is not a suit for declaration simpliciter, it is a suit for declaration with a further relief.
- Allowing the appeal, the Court held that 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.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
