26 May

Even A Trespasser In Established Possession Can Obtain Injunction: Supreme Court

first_imgTop StoriesEven A Trespasser In Established Possession Can Obtain Injunction: Supreme Court LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK8 Feb 2021 8:34 PMShare This – xEven a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a Madras High Court judgment decreeing an injunction suit.The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginEven a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a Madras High Court judgment decreeing an injunction suit.The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed that  the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration will not apply when the plaintiff’s possession over the property is ‘admitted and established’.In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction simplicitor. He sought a permanent injunction interdicting 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 raised by the defendant before the Apex court 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, it was contended.Examining the pleadings, the bench observed that the defendant of the suit, Subramanian had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property and the same was dismissed and that in his cross-examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction. Taking note of this, the bench observed: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.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.CASE: A.SUBRAMANIAN vs. R. PANNERSELVAM [CIVIL APPEAL NO.9472 of 2010CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR ShahCOUNSEL: Adv K. Abhirame, Adv V. PrabhakarCITTION: LL 2021 SC 71Click here to Read/Download JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more