The Supreme Court of India, in a property dispute between siblings, has held that a court cannot grant an injunction restraining interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of a property when the plaintiff, in their pleadings and evidence, admits that the defendant is the one in possession. The bench, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, modified a High Court order, setting aside the injunction for peaceful possession but maintaining an injunction against the alienation of the suit property by either party. The Court granted both parties the liberty to file fresh suits to seek a declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Background of the Case
The legal battle originated from a suit filed by D. Rajammal against her brother, Munuswamy. Rajammal sought an injunction to prevent Munuswamy from alienating or creating any encumbrance on the suit property and to restrain him from interfering with her “peaceful possession & enjoyment” of it.
Her claim was based on a Will dated September 30, 1985, executed by their father, Rangaswamy Naidu. According to the Will, a property of 1.742 acres was bequeathed equally to Rajammal and another brother, Govindarajan, giving her a share of 0.87 acres. The plaintiff contended that Munuswamy was occupying the property as a tenant.
Munuswamy contested the suit, arguing that he came into possession of the property as a co-owner. He claimed that during their father’s lifetime, an arrangement was made whereby the property was equally divided between him and his brother Govindarajan.
The Trial Court found that the Will was proven and decreed the suit in Rajammal’s favour, granting both injunctions as prayed. However, the First Appellate Court overturned this decision, concluding that the property was ancestral land and the testator, Rangaswamy Naidu, had no right to execute a Will for it. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
The matter then reached the High Court in a second appeal. The High Court framed two substantial questions of law regarding the nature of the property (joint family or absolute) and the interpretation of a document produced by the defendant. The High Court ruled in favour of Rajammal, finding the property to be the absolute property of her father and that the Will was validly proved. It set aside the First Appellate Court’s order and restored the Trial Court’s decree. The legal heirs of the defendant, Munuswamy, then brought the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellants (defendant’s heirs) argued that they had always been in possession of the land, a fact which the plaintiff herself had admitted. They contended that a suit for a simple injunction (“injunction simpliciter”) was not maintainable without a prayer for a declaration of title and recovery of possession, especially when possession was admittedly with them.
The respondent (plaintiff) maintained her claim based on the Will and pointed to a previous suit for possession and arrears of rent filed by her father against Munuswamy, which she claimed was dismissed after her brother agreed to pay the rent.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed examination of the pleadings and evidence. The bench noted that the plaintiff had made “clear statements as to the defendant having been inducted into the property as a tenant.” More importantly, the plaintiff had admitted in her evidence that the property was in the possession of her brothers, Munuswamy and Govindarajan.
The Court observed that a prior suit (O.S. No. 895 of 1984) filed by the father was dismissed for default after his death and not due to any agreement regarding rent payment. In that suit as well, Munuswamy had claimed possession as a co-owner, not a tenant.
The Supreme Court highlighted a critical flaw in the plaintiff’s suit. Despite not having possession, she had not sought the relief of recovery of possession. Furthermore, while asserting title through a Will, she failed to seek a declaration of title, which was essential given the defendant’s consistent claim of being a co-owner.
The judgment stated, “Even if the title is established, there should have been a recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff.”
Finding fault with the lower courts’ decisions, the Supreme Court observed, “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.”
While setting aside the injunction related to possession, the Court found the injunction against alienation to be “perfectly in order since the defendant too has not sought for a declaration of title.” The Court noted that a “stalemate is created; with the ownership not having been declared in favour of either of the parties.”
The Final Decision
Disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court reserved liberty for either party to seek a declaration of title and consequential possession or recovery of possession. The Court directed that any such fresh proceedings must be instituted within three months from the date of its order (October 07, 2025) and would be considered afresh, “untrammelled by the findings in the present proceedings.”
The Court made it clear that pending the resolution of the dispute, “no alienation shall be made by both parties or the subject property encumbered.”
