Once dispute regarding title is settled, permanent injunction cannot be granted against true owner: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an injunction cannot be granted against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession [Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) vs Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased)]..A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner."In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant –the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected," the judgment said..The bench added that 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.The Supreme Court held that 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 dispossess him, except in due process of law," the Court stated..Here, the original plaintiff had claimed that to avoid the financial mess created by her husband's drinking problem, she sold 1 guntha of her own 6 gunthas of land to the defendant. However, the defendant allegedly played fraud upon her and prepared a deed to sell all 6 gunthas. The defendant claimed to be the true owner and cited revenue records which had mutated his name since 1976 and that he was even cultivating in the lands.The plaintiff thereafter challenged the same and sought the cancellation of the sale deed, return of the 1 guntha land and a permanent injunction against the defendant.The trial court held the sale deed to be valid and that it was in favour of defendant, however it granted permanent injunction against the defendant on the 5 gunthas of land stating that the plaintiff was in possession of the same.On appeal, the Gujarat High Court held the suit for validity of sale deed to have attained finality and barred by limitation but held that permanent injunction would still lie against the defendant.The defendant appealed against the same in Supreme Court..The top court held that once the defendant was held to be the true and absolute owner pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in his favour and the plaintiff was unsuccessful so far as the declaratory relief is concerned, it cannot be said that there was a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and/or even the defendant."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," Supreme Court held..The Supreme Court further held that once the suit is held to be barred by limitation with respect to 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."It is true that under normal circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction sought is a substantive relief and the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed so long as the interference in possession continuous. 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 be applicable," the top court said.Thus, the prayer for permanent injunction must fail, the Court concluded."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," the two-judge bench held. The Court further held that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the plaintiff was in possession, in that case also, once the plaintiff has lost so far as the relief of declaration and title is concerned and the defendant is held to be the true and absolute owner of the property, the true owner cannot be restrained by way of an injunction against him.The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiff..[Read Judgment]