Suit For Injunction Simpliciter Not Maintainable If There's Cloud Over Possession Of Property: Supreme Court

The Court held that failure to seek possession in such circumstances attracts the bar under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The Court was hearing a civil appeal arising from a judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand, which had allowed a second appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for the removal of a boundary wall.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal, and held that “where there is a construction raised on the disputed property alleged to be owned by the plaintiffs, the appropriate and efficacious remedy available to them was to institute a suit for possession along with a consequential relief of injunction, and not a suit for injunction simpliciter”.

The appellants were represented by Advocate Anurag Tomar, while the respondent was represented by Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal.

Background

The appellants were the plaintiffs in a civil suit seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove a boundary wall allegedly constructed on land claimed by them. The plaintiffs asserted ownership over a portion of land forming part of a larger khasra number, on the basis of a registered sale deed, and claimed that the wall obstructed their access to a public road.

The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that they had established title and possession over the disputed land and that the construction of the wall by the defendant was unlawful. The first appellate court affirmed the decree.

Aggrieved, the defendant filed a second appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below, and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had sought a relief of injunction simpliciter despite there being a serious dispute regarding title, possession, and identity of the property, and despite the existence of a construction on the disputed land.

The plaintiffs thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the scope of reliefs available under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly in the context of Section 41(h), which bars the grant of an injunction where an equally efficacious remedy is available.

The Court noted that the plaintiffs’ case itself disclosed serious disputes with regard to title, possession, and identification of the land forming part of the larger khasra number. It further noted that the existence of a boundary wall constructed on the disputed property was an admitted fact.

The Court held that where a construction is raised on property claimed by the plaintiff, such construction amounts to dispossession or trespass, and in such circumstances, the proper and efficacious remedy is to file a suit for possession with a consequential prayer for injunction.

The Bench observed that a suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable only in limited categories of cases, such as where the plaintiff is in settled possession and faces mere interference, or where the defendant is a permissive occupant without any independent claim. It held that the present case did not fall within those categories.

The Court examined the reliance placed by the appellants on earlier decisions permitting suits for mandatory injunction without seeking possession, and held that those decisions applied to cases involving permissive possession, such as that of a licensee, where there was no cloud over title or possession.

Distinguishing those precedents, the Court held that in the present case there existed a serious cloud over both title and possession, coupled with disputes regarding the identity and location of the land, rendering a suit for injunction simpliciter legally untenable.

The Apex Court further noted that the High Court was justified in holding that the trial court and first appellate court had erred in granting a decree of mandatory injunction in the absence of cogent proof identifying the exact portion of land on which the wall was constructed.

On the scope of interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court held that the High Court had rightly exercised its jurisdiction, as the concurrent findings of the courts below were vitiated by misapplication of settled legal principles and gave rise to substantial questions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs’ suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as an equally efficacious remedy of seeking possession was available but not pursued. It upheld the judgment of the High Court dismissing the suit.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Cause Title: Sanjay Paliwal And Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 61)

Appearances

Appellants: Anurag Tomar, Advocate; Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

Respondent: Shailesh Madiyal, Senior Advocate; Parijat Sinha, AOR; Divyam Dhyani, Advocate; Reshmi Rea Sinha, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment