Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that suit for injunction simpliciter can be filed only if the defendant does not raise any dispute with regard to title of the property.                          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors v.  Narayan Nayak & Ors. (2024). 

What was the Background of Krushna Chandra Behera & Ors v. Narayan Nayak & Ors. Case?  

• The plaintiffs in this case filed a suit praying for the following reliefs: 
  • The defendant be perpetually injuncted from entering the suit land. 
  • The defendant should not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 
  • The defendant was temporarily injuncted not to enter upon the suit land till the disposal of the suit and not to cut the present standing paddy crops. 
• In the title suit a decree was passed by the Trial Court in the favor of plaintiffs. 
• The defendants preferred to appeal against the decree passed by the Trial Court before the District Judge, Jaipur. 
• This appeal came to be dismissed and the decree passed by the Trial Court was affirmed. 
• The defendants thereafter went to the High Court by way of second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
• The High Court in this case framed the following two questions of law for consideration: 
  • Whether the Courts below have erred in asking for the relief of injunction simpliciter without asking for the relief of possession and declaration of title. 
  • Whether the Courts below were correct in holding the alleged document to be sale when there is controversy as to whether the document is sale or mortgage by conditional sale. 
•  The High Court decided the first issue in favour of the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 
• The only ground the High Court gave in granting the relief in favour of High Court was that the relief of injunction simpliciter was asked for. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court.  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that it is a settled law that if the defendants do not dispute the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been prayed for. 
• The Court held that in the present facts when the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original defendants) was confronted with this, he submitted that since the defendants are in possession, it was obligatory on the part of the appellants – herein as plaintiffs to pray for main relief seeking possession of the suit property. 
• It was observed that the High Court did not make any observation on who is in possession of the suit property. 
• In view of the facts above the Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Second Appeal in accordance with the law. 

What is a Suit of Injunction?

• Injunction is a remedy which is asked for from the Court prevent breach of any obligation that exists in favor of a person. 
• According to the duration of injunction there are two types of injunctions: 
  • Permanent Injunction: 
    • A permanent injunction is a court order that restrains a party from engaging in certain conduct or compels them to perform specific acts. 
    • It is considered a final and permanent remedy, distinct from preliminary injunctions, which are issued on a temporary basis during the pendency of a legal proceeding. 
    • Permanent or Perpetual injunction is granted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 
    • Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of SRA states that a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favor, whether expressly or by implication.
  • Temporary Injunction:  
    • Order XXXIX of the CPC specifically deals with temporary injunctions.   
    • It outlines the conditions under which a court may grant an injunction to restrain a party from doing a particular act or to compel a party to do a specific act.   
    • The key considerations include:  
      • The likelihood of success on the merits of the case.  
      • The possibility of irreparable harm to the applicant.  
      • The balance of convenience between the parties.

What are the Important Case Laws on Maintainability of Injunction Suit? 

• TV Ramakrishna Reddy v. M Mallappa (2021): 
  • The Court laid down in this case that a suit simpliciter for injunction can only be filed in those cases where the title of the plaintiff over the property is not under cloud.
• Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) (2008): 
  • This is the landmark case where the Court laid down as to when the suit for injunction simpliciter can be filed: 
    • The Court laid down that in following cases suit for injunction simpliciter can be filed: 
      • If someone raises doubts about the plaintiff's ownership of property and the plaintiff is not in possession, the plaintiff should file a case asking for a declaration of ownership and possession, with or without an additional request to stop interference. 
      • If the plaintiff's ownership is clear and not questioned, but they are not in possession, they need to file a case for possession along with a request to prevent interference. 
      • If the plaintiff is in possession but faces interference or a threat of being dispossessed, they can simply file a case asking for the interference to stop. 
    • The Court further answered the question as to whether in a suit for injunction the issue of title will be directly and substantially in issue: 
      • A suit for an injunction simpliciter focuses primarily on possession, not ownership (title). 
      • Typically, the question of ownership (title) is not directly or significantly considered in such cases. 
      • The court will decide the injunction request based on the possession status. 
      • However, in situations like disputes over vacant land, establishing legal possession (de jure possession) may require proving ownership. 
      • In such cases, determining ownership becomes essential to decide the question of possession.
    • It was further laid down the following points on whether issue of title can be decided in a suit for injunction: 
      • When there are proper pleadings and evidence regarding ownership (title) and the issue is straightforward, the court may decide the question of ownership even in a suit for injunction. 
      • This is an exception to the general rule that ownership disputes are not decided in injunction suits. 
      • If someone with clear ownership and possession files for an injunction, they should not be forced into a more complex and expensive suit for a declaration just because someone wrongfully challenges their ownership or tries to encroach on their property. 
      • The court should exercise its discretion wisely to determine:  
        • When to examine ownership in an injunction suit, and 
        • When to direct the plaintiff to file a broader suit for declaration. 
      • The decision should depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.