In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a suit for injunction simpliciter is valid even without a prayer for declaratory relief if the title of the plaintiff remains undisputed. Delivered on January 6, 2025, the ruling came in Civil Appeal No. 159/2025 involving appellants Krushna Chandra Behera and others and respondents Narayan Nayak and others. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, set aside the Orissa High Court’s decision and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolved around a piece of agricultural land, which the plaintiffs claimed to possess with an undisputed title. They filed Title Suit No. 174/1983 before the trial court, seeking:
1. Permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from entering the suit land or interfering with possession.
2. Temporary injunction against harvesting standing crops until the suit’s disposal.
3. Other incidental reliefs.
The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the injunction. This was affirmed by the first appellate court. However, the defendants appealed to the Orissa High Court through Regular Second Appeal No. 38/2019, raising substantial questions of law.
The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the plaintiffs’ failure to include a declaratory relief in their prayer rendered the suit legally unsustainable. This judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The Supreme Court identified the following pivotal legal questions:
1. Maintainability of an Injunction Simpliciter Without Declaratory Relief:
Whether a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is maintainable without a prayer for a declaration of title when there are rival claims of title and possession.
2. Interpretation of Disputed Deeds:
Whether the sale deed in question was correctly construed by the courts below as an outright sale rather than a mortgage with a conditional sale.
3. Possession and Its Legal Impact:
Whether possession of the suit property was adequately addressed by the High Court, given its relevance in determining the plaintiffs’ entitlement to an injunction.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed these issues in detail:
1. On Injunction Simpliciter:
The bench reaffirmed that the absence of declaratory relief does not render a suit for injunction simpliciter invalid if the defendants do not dispute the plaintiff’s title. The court stated:
“The law is well-settled that if the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs, the suit should not fail merely because the plaintiffs did not seek a declaration of their title.”
2. High Court’s Oversight on Possession:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for failing to address the question of possession. It noted:
“The High Court has not said a word about who is in possession of the suit property. This is a vital issue affecting the rights of the parties.”
3. Failure to Analyze Substantial Legal Issues:
The bench observed that the High Court had failed to analyze whether the deed in question was an outright sale or a mortgage by conditional sale, as contested by the parties. The court remarked:
“Relevant surrounding circumstances and the settled principles of law governing such disputes were ignored.”
4. Role of Declaratory Relief:
The court clarified that declaratory relief is necessary only when title is disputed. Since the defendants in this case had not explicitly challenged the plaintiffs’ title, the suit for injunction simpliciter was maintainable.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the High Court to decide the appeal within three months while addressing all material issues.
The court stated:
“The High Court has not dealt with the second appeal in accordance with law and has failed to consider relevant vital issues affecting the rights of the parties to the litigation.”
