A.SUBRAMANIAN vs. R. PANNERSELVAM, SC 2021
The plaintiff in his plaint claimed title and possession, and sought restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.But in his prayer permanent injunction interdicting the defendants, and their man from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property in any
The submission which has been made by the counsel for the appellants is that in the suit, plaintiff has claimed his title and possession, the High Court committed error in not entering into the question of title of plaintiff and without determining the title of the plaintiff the suit ought not to have been decreed.
In the present case the possession of the plaintiff was upheld by the High Court on two main reasons. Firstly, the defendant of the suit, Subramanian had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property against Ghani Sahib who was manager of the property which suit was dismissed and recovery of possession having been rejected, defendant cannot even make a plea to be in possession and secondly defendant in his cross-examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction.
The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction. However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief.
Thus ,the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant No.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property.
Thus the SC held that, it did find any any error in the view of the High Court that it was not necessary to enter into the question of title and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff.