Supreme Court upholds ruling on injunction for trespassers

Supreme Court upholds ruling on injunction for trespassers

Madras High Court had ruled in favour of the trespasser in the Second Appeal in property dispute case on a Trail Court decree

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgement in a civil suit that will set the necessary yardstick for lower courts in disposing of property dispute cases, especially those relating to obtaining injunction on properties under the possession of a trespasser.

An Apex Court bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and M R Shah on 8 January 2021 upheld a Madras High Court judgement on an injunction suit.

Petitioners A Subramanian and Rajendran had knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court against R Pannerselvam who had obtained an injunction in a property which was under their possession. In the judgement pronounced by Justice Ashok Bhushan, the bench observed that even a trespasser who was in an established possession of the property could obtain an injunction.

In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction simplicitor. He sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit was upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal.

The main contention of the defendant before the Supreme Court bench was that the plaintiff could not have sought for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration. The suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed mere on the fact that the defendants failed to prove their title and possession.

"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 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 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 of the fact that 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 a prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts of the present case," the bench said in its judgement.

The bench observed while examining the pleadings that Subramanian, the defendant of the suit, had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property and the same was dismissed. In his cross-examination, he himself admitted that the plaintiff had demolished the construction after purchase.

"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 admit and established possession of the plaintiff, the court observed while dismissing the appeal," the bench said, putting an end to a decade-old case.