Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that when can a suit be filed for injunction simpliciter. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench consisting of Justice RV Raveendran and Justice P Sathasivam. 

Facts   

• The appeal concerns a suit for permanent injunction related to two sites in Warangal town. 
• Plaintiffs Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy claimed to have purchased the sites from Rukminibai through registered sale deeds dated 9th December 1968. 
• When the plaintiffs began digging trenches on 3rd May 1978 to start construction, the defendant interfered, leading to the suit for injunction. 
• The defendant claimed he purchased the same property from K.V. Damodar Rao (Rukminibai's brother) through a registered sale deed dated 7th November 1977, had the property transferred to his name, obtained construction plan sanction, and secured a loan by mortgaging the property. 
• The property was originally part of the backyard of property No. 13/775 and 13/776 belonging to Damodar Rao. 
• Plaintiffs claimed Damodar Rao orally gifted the backyard portion to his sister Rukminibai in 1961 as "Pasupu Kumkumam" (a gift to a sister conferring absolute title). 
• The trial court initially decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, stating the plaintiffs should have filed for declaration of title, not just injunction. 
• The High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the trial court's judgment, finding that an oral gift had occurred and that even if not, Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act applied due to Damodar Rao's acts supporting Rukminibai's ownership. 

Issues Involved  

• What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property? 
•  Whether on the facts, plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction?  
• Whether the High Court, in a second appeal under section 100 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) examine the factual question of title which was not the subject matter of any issue and based on a finding thereon, reverse the decision of the first appellate court? 
• What is the appropriate decision? 

Observation 

• With Regard to Issue (i): 
  • When plaintiff's title is disputed and plaintiff lacks possession, the proper remedy is a suit for declaration and possession, with or without injunction. 
  • When plaintiff's title is undisputed but plaintiff lacks possession, the correct action is a suit for possession with consequential injunction. 
  • When there is merely interference with lawful possession or threat of dispossession, a suit for injunction simpliciter is sufficient. 
  • In injunction suits, title issues are normally not directly considered - the decision centers on possession findings. 
  • For vacant sites, title may need to be examined to establish de jure possession, as actual possession cannot be determined otherwise. 
  • A finding on title cannot be made in an injunction suit without: 
    • Necessary pleadings regarding title 
    • Appropriate issues (specific or implied) regarding title 
  • Courts will not investigate title questions in injunction suits where pleadings about title are absent or no title-related issues exist. 
  • Even with proper pleadings and issues, if title questions are complex, courts should direct parties to file a comprehensive declaration suit rather than deciding title in an injunction proceeding. 
  • Courts may decide straightforward title issues in injunction suits when: 
    • Proper pleadings regarding title exist 
    • Appropriate issues on title are raised 
    • Parties have presented evidence on title 
    • The matter is simple and straightforward 
  • However, deciding title in injunction suits remains an exception to the general rule. 
• With Regard to Issue (ii): 
  • Rukminibai (plaintiffs' vendor) had no title deed to the suit property, with plaintiffs arguing her ownership derived from an oral "Pasupu Kumkumam" gift from her brother in 1961. 
  • Despite the alleged gift, the property was never mutated in Rukminibai's name in municipal records and remained in Damodar Rao's name. 
  • Rukminibai was a resident of Hyderabad, while Damodar Rao lived in Warangal adjacent to the property, suggesting Rukminibai lacked actual possession. 
  • The plaintiffs' tax receipts were from after both their purchase and the defendant's purchase, while defendant purchased from Damodar Rao who was the registered owner in municipal records. 
  • The first appellate court found plaintiffs' evidence about Rukminibai's title to be "sketchy and inconsistent," with three contradictory versions presented: 
    • The property belonged to Rukminibai's father and given to her as "Pasupu Kumkumam" (PW1) 
    • There was an oral partition after Rukminibai's father's death (PW2) 
    • Damodar Rao made an oral gift in 1961, though no special occasion existed (PW4/Rukminibai) 
  • Since the property was a vacant plot with Damodar Rao as admitted original owner, the defendant's claim through the registered owner has prima facie preference over plaintiffs' claim through someone without documentation. 
  • Though plaintiffs claimed Damodar Rao represented Rukminibai as owner, negotiated sales, and attested deeds, Damodar Rao denied these assertions in his testimony. 
  • The court held that complicated questions involving ostensible ownership (Section 41 of TP Act), validity of oral gifts under Hindu law, estoppel, and acquiescence should be examined in a proper title suit, not in a suit for injunction simpliciter. 
• With Regard to Issue (iii) and (iv): 
  • The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by formulating improper questions of law. 
  • Of the three questions formulated by the High Court, only the first (regarding maintainability of an injunction suit without seeking declaration of title) was appropriate. 
  • The second question concerning Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act was improper because: 
    • It was a mixed question of fact and law 
    • The plaintiffs never made specific pleadings necessary to claim benefit under Section 41 
    • Required elements (ostensible ownership, due diligence, good faith purchase) were not pleaded 
  • The third question about oral gift validity was similarly improper as: 
    • No averments about any gift appeared in the plaint 
    • The defendant had no opportunity to deny the oral gift in written statement 
    • No issue was framed on this aspect 
  • The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for conducting a "roving enquiry" into oral gift validity and ostensible title despite the absence of pleadings and issues. 
  • The Court emphasized that "no amount of evidence or arguments can be looked into or considered in the absence of pleadings and issues." 
  • The Supreme Court found the High Court improperly: 
    • Re-examined questions of fact 
    • Considered questions not pleaded and not subject to any issue 
    • Formulated questions of law that didn't arise in the second appeal 
    • Interfered with a well-reasoned first appellate court judgment 
  • Despite recognizing the hardship of sending plaintiffs to fresh litigation after three decades, the Court noted the plaintiffs created their own predicament by: 
    • Failing to convert the suit to one for declaration when the written statement was filed 
    • Not seeking amendment of issues to include title questions 
  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the suit. 
  • The Court clarified that nothing in its judgment should be construed as an opinion on title in any future suit for declaration that appellants might file.

Conclusion

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down the law on scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property. 
• This judgment provides for when can suit be filed only for injunction.