Supreme Court: Injunction Can Be Obtained By Trespasser In Established Possession

Supreme Court: Injunction Can Be Obtained By Trespasser In Established Possession

The Supreme Court of India (SC) upheld the judgment of the Madras High Court (HC) decreeing an injunction suit and it stated in the case of A. Subramanian (Appellant) v. R. Pannerselvam (Respondent), that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain an injunction.

The SC bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and MR Shah, observed that the principle that the plaintiff cannot seek a bare permanent injunction without seeking prayer for declaration will not apply when the plaintiff's possession over the property is 'admitted and established'.

The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants (originally defendants) filed a suit seeking an injunction. A permanent injunction was sought by him interdicting the respondents (originally petitioners) from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

The HC upheld the decision of the Trial Court decreeing the suit in the Second Appeal.

The appellants raised the contention before the Top Court that the respondents could not have sought for a bare permanent injunction without seeking prayer for declaration.

The appellants contended before the SC that the original suit (filed by the plaintiff) cannot be decreed merely on the fact that the defendants (appellants here) failed to prove their title and possession.

The Bench examined the matter and it observed that the defendant of the suit, Subramanian had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property. The said suit was dismissed and that in his cross-examination he made an admission that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction.

Taking into consideration the above fact, the Top Court noted, "The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain an injunction. However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of the title along with injunction relief."

"The High Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute obviously because in the previous litigation, DW1 failed to obtain any relief. The High Court has rightly observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts of the present case" the Bench stated.

The Bench referred to the judgment of SC in the case of Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K.C. Alexander and 2021 SC 71 18, where three-Judge Bench presided by Justice Hidayatullah, has reiterated the principle that possession is good against all but the true owner.

The above principle was enumerated in the case of Judicial Committee in Parry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73, that read "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of the owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title."

The SC upheld the judgment of the HC and it concluded "We do not find any error in the view of the High Court and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff, the Court observed while dismissing the appeal."