The Supreme Court of India has held that a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable when there is a serious dispute regarding the title and possession of the property. The Court ruled that where a defendant has raised a construction on the disputed land, amounting to dispossession, the plaintiff must seek the relief of possession. Failing to do so attracts the bar under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as an equally efficacious remedy is available.
The Bench, comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, dismissed the appeal filed by Sanjay Paliwal and another against the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which had reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit against Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL).
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to a parcel of land measuring 15 Biswa in Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The plaintiffs claimed to have purchased the land via a registered sale deed dated January 6, 1992, from Laxminarayan Jha and Bashir Khan. They alleged that the defendant, BHEL, constructed a boundary wall that blocked their access to a public road.
The plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking the removal of the wall. The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had established title and possession, and that the land was not acquired by the State for BHEL. The First Appellate Court confirmed this decree.
However, in a Second Appeal, the High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts. The High Court held that the construction of the wall amounted to trespass and dispossession, for which the proper remedy was a suit for possession. Since the plaintiffs sought only a mandatory injunction without claiming possession, the suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court also noted defects in the plaintiffs’ title and the failure to prove the exact location of the disputed wall.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants (Plaintiffs) contended that the High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Senior Counsel S.R. Singh argued that the courts below had conclusively held the plaintiffs to be owners in settled possession. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgments in Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew to argue that a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable without seeking possession.
The Respondent (BHEL), represented by Senior Counsel Shailesh Madiyal, argued that the suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act because the plaintiffs had an equally efficacious remedy of seeking possession. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs failed to identify the specific land or provide measurements of the disputed wall. The respondent relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy to contend that a cloud over title and possession necessitates a comprehensive suit for declaration and possession, not a mere injunction.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the suit. The Bench observed that the case involved “a serious dispute regarding title over the disputed property,” a dispute as to possession, and a dispute regarding the “exact location and identification” of the land.
On Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act: The Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning that an “equally efficacious remedy” refers to a remedy that places the plaintiff in the same position they would have been had the injunction not been sought. The Court noted:
“The High Court observed that if a wall is constructed by the defendant over the disputed property claimed to be owned by the plaintiffs, such construction amounts to trespass resulting in dispossession of the plaintiffs from that portion of the property. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy available to the plaintiffs was to institute a suit for possession, in addition to or instead of seeking an injunction.”
Distinguishing Precedents: The Bench distinguished the cases of Sant Lal Jain and Joseph Severance cited by the appellants. The Court clarified that those decisions applied to cases where the defendant was a licensee or in permissive possession, and where there was no serious dispute regarding title or boundaries. The Court stated:
“In contradistinction, in the present case… there exists a serious dispute concerning both title and possession, coupled with serious dispute about identity of the land in question… Consequently, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions cannot be extended to the present factual matrix.”
Applicability of Anathula Sudhakar: Endorsing the principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, the Court reiterated that where a plaintiff’s title is under a cloud and they are out of possession, they must file a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction. A simple suit for injunction is not maintainable in such scenarios.
On Identity of Property: The Supreme Court also concurred with the High Court’s observation regarding the lack of evidence for the land’s identity. The Court noted:
“The High Court rightly noted that there were no measurements whatsoever of the disputed wall, either in the plaint map or in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the grant of a decree for mandatory injunction was wholly unsustainable…”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had lawfully exercised its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC to correct serious errors of law made by the lower courts. The Bench held that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act for failing to seek the relief of possession despite the cloud over title and possession.
The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment to dismiss the suit.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sanjay Paliwal and Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016
Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
