Recovery Of Possession Should’ve Been Sought Even If Title Was Established: SC Denies Relief Of Injunction In Property Dispute Matter

The appeal before the Apex Court arose from a suit filed by one Rajammal against Munuswamy, her brother, for injunction simpliciter, one, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the suit property and the other to restrain interference with the peaceful possession & enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “In the above circumstances, we cannot but find the ‘Will’ is proved but the right of the testator to bequeath the property is still under a cloud. Even if the title is established, there should have been a recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff. The ill-drafted plaint and the clear admissions made in the witness box ought to have restricted the trial court and the High Court from granting an injunction against the interference of peaceful enjoyment of the property, especially when the possession was admitted to be with the defendant, in the pleadings as also the oral evidence. The injunction against alienation is perfectly in order since the defendant too has not sought for a declaration of title.”

Senior Advocate S. Nandakumar represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The plaintiff claimed absolute right over the property, being a half share of 1.74½ acres coming to 0.87¼ acres of dry-land property with all appurtenances attached thereto. The claim was made specifically on the ground that by a Will Rangaswamy Naidu, their father had bequeathed the said property equally in favour of the plaintiff and another brother, Govindarajan. The plaintiff’s contention was that the defendant was continuing in the property as a tenant, while the defendant claimed that he came into possession as a co-owner, and later there was an arrangement, by which in the lifetime of his father, the property was equally divided between the brothers i.e. the defendant and Govindarajan.

The trial court found the Will to have been proved and decreed the suit injuncting the defendant from alienating the property and from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. On appeal, the appellate court found that the bequest was made of ancestral land, on which the testator had no right to execute the Will. The trial court judgment was upset and the suit was dismissed. In the second appeal, the the right of the plaintiff over the property was established and the possession was found to follow title, thus enabling both the injunctions sought for. The first appellate court’s order was set aside, and the suit was allowed restoring the trial court’s judgment & decree. It was the case of the legal heirs of the defendant (appellants) that they had always been in possession of the land, as admitted by the plaintiff. The suit was filed without any prayer for a declaration, and the injunction simpliciter ought not to have been granted.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that clear statements were made in the suit as to the defendant having been inducted into the property as a tenant by the father. The father was said to have filed the suit to obtain possession of the suit property and arrears of rent, which, after his death, stood dismissed allegedly for the reason that the defendant had agreed to pay the rent. This suit was dismissed for default without any observation of an agreement regarding the payment of rent.

It was noticed that the original plaintiff having died, the siblings who got impleaded as his legal heirs filed an amended plaint again alleging tenancy and claiming the property as per the registered Will. The substituted plaintiffs, despite taking up a plea of the Will executed by the deceased father in the amended plaint, the proceedings were not continued and the suit stood dismissed for default.

The Bench further noted that the plaintiff did not have possession and she had not claimed recovery of possession. “While asserting a Will and title on its strength, there should have been a declaration of title sought, especially when the contention of the defendant was that he came into the property as a co-owner and then occupied it with absolute rights, making valuable improvements. The defendant also did not seek to get a declaration on the basis of an arrangement entered into with the father and the other brother or seek a partition on the strength of a counter claim”, it mentioned.

Considering that a stalemate was created with the ownership not having been declared in favour of either of the parties and also considering the relationship, the Bench reserved liberty to either of the parties to seek a declaration of title and consequential possession or recovery of possession, if they desired.

The Bench disposed of the Petition by further directing, “If a fresh proceeding is initiated then the same would be considered afresh untrammelled by the findings in the present proceedings, which shall not govern the rights of the parties. However, we make it clear that no alienation shall be made by both parties or the subject property encumbered.”

Cause Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi v. D. Rajammal (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1197)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate S. Nandakumar, AOR Naresh Kumar, Advocates Deepika Nandakumar, Amit Yadav, Kanimozhi Jaishankar

Respondent: Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan, Advocate Punit Agarwwal, AOR Sajal Jain

Click here to read/download Judgment