A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR. versus R. PANNERSELVAM on 8 February 2021

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 879

A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR.

v.

R. PANNERSELVAM

(Civil Appeal No. 9472 of 2010)

FEBRUARY 08, 2021

[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDYAND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]

Suit – For permanent injunction – Plaintiff-respondent filedsuit for permanent injunction interdicting the defendants-appellantsfrom disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffover suit property –Plaintiff’s case was that he had purchasedproperty from descendants of one ‘D’ and supported his claim withpower of attorney executed by legal heirs of ‘D’, sale deed dated16.07.2001, sale deed dated 14.03.1946 in favour of ‘D’ and housetax receipt dated 27.02.2001 –Defendant refuted the claim ofplaintiff – The trial Court held that the plaintiff has right over theproperty, the possession of plaintiff was also found to be proved –However, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that theplaintiff failed to establish title over the property –The High Courtfound that earlier appellant-defendant had filed a suit fordeclaration and recovery of possession of the same suit propertyand it was dismissed by the trial Court and appeal was also dismissed– So, the finality was achieved to the previous proceedings thatdefendant had neither title nor was in possession of suit property –The High Court after considering the same affirmed the decision ofthe trial Court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff – Onappeal, held: In the instant case, the present suit giving rise to thisappeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession ratherthe suit was filed for injunction – The High Court has given cogentreasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunctionwas maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff infacts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigationwhich was initiated at the instance of defendant where he lost thesuit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property– Therefore, the defendant cannot make a plea to be in possessionand also, when defendant had admitted that plaintiff was inpossession – The trial Court as well as the High Court has looked

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Ainto not only the oral evidence but the exhibits which were filed onbehalf of the defendant– Thus, there is no error in the judgment ofthe High Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. In the present case the possession of the plaintiffBwas upheld by the High Court on two main reasons. Firstly, thedefendant of the suit, had earlier filed a suit for recovery ofpossession and declaration for the same property against themanager of the property which suit was dismissed and recoveryof possession having been rejected, defendant cannot even makeCa plea to be in possession and secondly defendant in his cross-examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase haddemolished the construction. [Para 20][889-A-B]

2. The High Court was also right in its view that it is acommon principle of law that even trespasser, who is in establishedDpossession of the property could obtain injunction. However, thematter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in theplaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declarationof title along with injunction relief. The High Court has rightlyobserved that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstratethat the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title disputeEobviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly observedthat the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanentinjunction without seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicableto the facts of the present case. [Para 21][889-G-H; 890-A]F3.In the present case the present suit giving rise to thisappeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession ratherthe suit was filed for injunction. As noted, the High Court hasgiven cogent reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintifffor injunction was maintainable without entering into the title ofGthe plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of theprevious litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendantNo.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery ofpossession of the same property. The submission of theappellants that evidence filed by the defendant were not looked H

into is not correct. The trial court as well as the High Court haslooked into not only the oral evidence but the exhibits whichwere filed on behalf of the defendant which is clear from thediscussion made by the High Court. [Para 25][891-F-H; 892-A]

A

4. This Court does not find any error in the view of theHigh Court that it was not necessary to enter into the validity ofExhibits A-1 and A-2 and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffdeserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and establishedpossession of the plaintiff. This Court,thus, does not find any errorin the judgment of the High Court allowing the second appealfiled by the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment of theFirst Appellate Court and restoring that of trial court.[Para 26][892-B]

B

C

Nagar Palika, Jind vs. Jagat Singh, Advocate (1995) 3SCC 426 : [1995] 3 SCR 9; Yamuna NagarImprovement Trust vs. Khariati Lal (2005) 10 SCC 30;Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) Through LegalRepresentatives and another vs. Shivnath and others(2019) 6 SCC 82 : [2019] 6 SCR 518; AjendraPrasadji Narendra Prasadji Pandey vs. Swami K.Narayandasji and others (2005) 10 SCC 11 : [2005]1 Suppl. SCR 392 ; Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C.Alexander and others AIR 1968 SC 1165 : [1968] SCR 163 – referred to.

D

E

Parry v. Clissold (1907) AC 73 – referred to.

From the Judgement and Order dated 28.04.2009 passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Madras in SA No. 39 of 2009.

H

AMs. K. Abhirame, V. Raghavachari and G. Balaji, Adv. for theAppellants.

V. Prabhakar, Ms. E.R. Sumathy, Ms. Jyoti Parashar, N. J.Ramachander and Ms. S. Spandana Reddy, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered byB

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the defendants in the civil suitchallenging the judgment dated 28.04.2009 of Madras High Court inSecond Appeal No.39 of 2009 by which judgment the High Court hadCallowed the second appeal of the plaintiff setting aside the judgment ofthe First Appellate Court dated 26.11.2008 in A.S. No.172 of 2005 andrestoring the judgment dated 06.02.2004 in O.S.No.188 of 2002 of thetrial court decreeing the suit.

2. Parties shall be referred to as referred in the Original Suit.DBrief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are:

The plaintiff, R. Pannerselvam, who is the respondent in this appeal,filed O.S. No.188 of 2002 in the Court of District Munsif, Namakkalpraying for permanent injunction interdicting the defendants fromdisturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff overthe suit property. The suit property was measuring 1777-1/2 sq.ft.Ecomprising in Survey No.172/1 situated at Kalappanaickenpatti Village.Plaintiff’s case in the suit was that suit property originally belonged toone Dhasi Naidu son of Thalama Naidu who went to Sri Lanka as aFarm Labour and died at Sri Lanka. The son of Dhasi Naidu, KrishnasamyNaidu came to India in 1981 and entrusted the suit property and otherFproperties to one Ghani Sahib, who had been managing and enjoying theproperties.

3. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property byregistered deed on 16.07.2001 for a valid consideration from thedescendants of Dhasi Naidu. The plaintiff’s further case was that theGfirst defendant was formerly military serviceman, and the seconddefendant who was son-in-law of the first defendant, working as constablein police department, attempted to disturb the plaintiff’s peacefulpossession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence, the suit wasfiled. The documents filed along with the plaint were power of attorneyexecuted by legal heirs of Dhasi Naidu dated 22.05.2001, sale deedH

dated 16.07.2001 and sale deed dated 14.03.1946 in favour of DhasiNaidu and house tax receipt dated 27.02.2001.

4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement refuting the claim ofthe plaintiff; defendant admitted that suit property belonged to DhasiNaidu. The defendant pleaded that registered sale deed dated 16.07.2001itself is a fabricated and forged one. So called legal heirs-descendantsof Dhasi Naidu as alleged in sale deed are fictious and are not true legalheirs of the said Dhasi Naidu. The title of the suit property is itselfquestionable, the plaintiff along with Ghani Sahib has fabricated twospecial powers and plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. with thesaid documents had filed suit. The defendants in the written statementhad set up the claim that Dhasi Naidu’s son Sanjeevi Naidu had entrustedthe suit property and other properties to one P. Rangaraju Naidu by aregistered power of attorney, who later died, leaving behind his onlylegal heir Mrs. Arjuna Devi, who died leaving behind her daughters,Nalanda, Indira and Gunabarathi. Defendant No.1 on behalf of her threedaughters filed a suit against the Ghani Sahib questioning his tenancywhich suit was dismissed and had been taken in appeal being A.S.No.297of 1994.

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Defendant examinedDW.1 to DW.6. Plaintiff filed seven exhibits. The trial court framed thefollowing three issues:

“a) Is the permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff in thesuit is available to him?

b) Is the statement of the defendants that the plaintiff is not thereal owner of the suit property correct?

c) What are the other reliefs available to the plaintiff?

6. The trial court held that power of attorney dated 22.05.2001was prepared at Sri Lanka and registered at Namakkal Sub-Registrar’soffice. The documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff are Exhibits PW1and PW2. The trial court held that the plaintiff has right over the property,the possession of plaintiff was also found proved. The trial court decreedthe suit.

7. The defendants filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Namakkalbeing A.S. No.172 of 2005. The First Appellate Court entered into thevalidity of power of attorney Exhibits PW1 and PW2 and observed that AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AExhibit PW1 is in circumstances by suspicious surrounding. The FirstAppellate Court, however, came to a conclusion that power deed writtenabroad need not be registered. The First Appellate Court, further, cameto the conclusion that execution and authentication of power of attorney,Exhibit PW1 having not been proved, the sale deed Exhibit PW2 is alsoadversely affected. Hence, plaintiff has failed to establish his title overBthe suit property. The First Appellate Court has, further, found thatdefendant No.1 had instituted O.S.No. 524 of 1987 which was for thesame property in which defendant No. 1 had claimed declaration andpossession of the property for himself and her three daughters whichsuit having been dismissed, the defendant has also not been able to proveCthat suit property belonged to the three daughters of defendant No.1 andpossession lies with them. The First Appellate Court allowed the appealand set aside the decree on the ground that plaintiff had failed to provehis title. Aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court theplaintiff has filed the second appeal.

D8. The High Court vide its judgment dated 28.04.2009 allowed thesecond appeal by deciding three substantial questions of law affirmingthe decree of trial court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. TheHigh Court found that defendant having filed Original Suit No.524 of1987 for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit propertywhich was dismissed by the trial court against which A.S. No.297 ofE1994 having also been dismissed, the finality was achieved to the previousproceedings that defendant has neither title nor in possession of the suitproperty and the possession of the plaintiff having been admitted by thedefendant, the suit of the plaintiff deserved to be decreed. The HighCourt was further of the view that the First Appellate Court ought not to Fhave entered into the validity of the Exhibits A-1 and A-2. The HighCourt allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the judgment of the HighCourt, the defendants have come up in this appeal.

9. Ms. K. Abhirame, learned counsel has appeared on behalf ofthe appellants and Shri V. Prabhakar, learned counsel has appeared forGthe respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffhaving claimed right to the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated16.07.2001 which sale deed was not found to be valid having not beenexecuted by proper power of attorney by the heirs of Dhasi Naidu, theHsuit of the plaintiff deserved to be dismissed. It is submitted that the plaintiff can succeed in the suit on the strength of his own case and theplaintiff cannot take any advantage of the weakness of the case of thedefendants. Even defendants failed to prove their title and possessionthe suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed mere on the factthat the defendants failed to prove their title and possession.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that thedocuments filed by the defendants were not considered by the trial courtas well as by the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant hasplaced reliance on the judgments of this Court in Nagar Palika, Jindvs. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426; Yamuna NagarImprovement Trust vs. Khariati Lal, (2005) 10 SCC 30 andJagdish Prasad Patel (dead) Through Legal Representatives andanother vs. Shivnath and others, (2019) 6 SCC 82.

12. Shri V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondentrefuting the submission of the counsel for the appellants contends thatplaintiff has successfully proved his possession which was also admittedby the defendant in his statement, the suit for injunction was rightly decreedby the trial court. It is submitted that in essence the plaintiff has alsosuccessfully proved his titled by registered sale deed. The property waspurchased by a registered sale deed on the basis of power of attorneyexecuted by legal heirs of Dhasi Naidu. The power of attorney havingbeen prepared at Sri Lanka and registered by Sub-Registrar Namakkal,First Appellate Court committed error in holding the power of attorneynot properly executed and authenticated. It is submitted that the plaintiffhaving demolished the old structure which is proved from the evidenceon record, the possession of the plaintiff could not be denied by thedefendant. The defendant having filed suit for declaration as well asrecovery of possession of the suit property against Ghani Sahib, themanager of the property which suit having been dismissed there is noright in the defendant to resist the suit of the plaintiff.

13. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel forthe parties and have perused the records.

14. The plaintiff in his plaint claimed title and possession, andsought restraining the defendants from disturbing plaintiff’s peacefulpossession and enjoyment over the suit property. In the suit plaintiff hasprayed for the following reliefs:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aa)by means of permanent injunction interdicting thedefendants, and their man from disturbing the peacefulpossession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suitproperty in any manner; b)by granting further other relief or reliefs as the Hon’bleBCourt deems fit in the circumstances of the case;

c)awarding the cost of the suit by the defendants and thusrender justice.”

15. The trial court found that the plaintiff has proved his right overthe property as well as possession, he was entitled for decree of injunction.CAll the three courts have referred to the earlier suit being O.S.No.524 of1987 filed by the defendants which suit was dismissed by the trial courtand appeal against which being A.S. No.297 of 1994 was also dismissedwhich judgments were brought before the trial court by the plaintiff. Thecopy of the judgment dated 23.11.1992 in O.S. No.524 of 1987 of theDtrial court has been brought on record as Annexure P5. The suit wasfiled by defendant No.1 along with his three minor daughters and hebeing father, guardian and next friend of daughters, the plaintiff of O.S.No.524 of 1987 claimed title over the suit property through Shri P.Rangaraju Naidu. Ghani Sahib who was manager, was impleaded asdefendant and suit was filed for declaration and possession and permanentEinjunction. The defendant contested the suit where defendant took theplea that the property belonged to Dhasi Naidu whose son KrishnasamyNaidu, who came to India and executed power of attorney in favour ofdefendant for managing the suit property since then the defendant wasin possession and user. The trial court held that the plaintiff has failed toFprove his title as well as possession. The possession of defendant wasadmitted by Subramanian who was the plaintiff in the said suit. Inparagraph 11 of the judgment following was held by the trial court:

“11.....In this suit, it has been admitted by the plaintiffs that thedefendant is in possession of the suit properties. Under theGcircumstances since the plaintiffs have admitted that the defendantis in possession of the suit properties, it is held that even thoughthe defendant has not produced the power of attorney executedby Krishnasamy in favour of defendant, in the deposition DW1has made a claim that the defendant is the power of Krishnasamyis an acceptable one. From the deposition of DW2, it is held that H

Dasi Naidu died leaving behind Sanjeevi Naidu, Nallu Naidu andKrishnasamy Naidu as his legal heirs..... It is also held that thedefendant is in possession and managing the suit property in hiscapacity as the power agent of Krishnasamy and defendant is nota tenant in the suit property and accordingly issue number 2 and 5are answered respectively. ....”

16. The suit for declaration and possession filed by Subramanianwas dismissed against which A.S. No.297 of 1994 was filed which wasdismissed by the District Court, Salem on 08.09.1995.

17. The High Court in its judgment has rightly referred to theearlier litigation and held that in view of the findings in the earlier suitfiled by Subramanian and his three daughters it is sufficient to hold thatdefendants are not in possession of the suit property. The High Courthas also rightly observed that plaintiff’s possession is based on theadmission of the defendant himself made in the suit. In paragraph 24,the High Court has held:

“24.....The Plaintiff’s possession is based on admissions made bythe defendants themselves and also the factum of the previousproceedings, which D-1 initiated and met with his waterloo.”

18. The submission which has been made by the counsel for theappellants is that in the suit, plaintiff has claimed his title and possession,the High Court committed error in not entering into the question of titleof plaintiff and without determining the title of the plaintiff the suit oughtnot to have been decreed. Learned counsel for the appellants has placedreliance on the judgment of this Court in Nagar Palika, Jind vs. JagatSingh, Advocate, (1995) 3 SCC 426. In the above case suit was filedby the respondent for injunction which was resisted by MunicipalCommittee on the ground that the respondent was neither the owner ofthe land in question nor was he in possession. The trial court dismissedthe suit. The First Appellate Court had decreed the suit and secondappeal was dismissed by the High Court. Nagar Palika filed appeal beforethis Court. The argument was raised before this court by Nagar Palikathat the Court of law proceeded on the assumption that the acquisitionof title through the sale deed which has not been produced before theHigh Court was admitted fact in the case and had never been questionedby the Municipal Committee. This Court in paragraph 6 disapproving thejudgment of the First Appellate Court held following:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“6. The counsel appearing for the respondent, could not explainas to how in face of such clear denial of the title and possessionof the respondent by the Municipal Committee in its writtenstatement, the Court of Appeal proceeded on the assumption thatthe acquisition of the title through the sale deed, which had notbeen produced before the Court, was an admitted fact in the caseBand had never been questioned by the Municipal Committee.According to us, when the Court of Appeal proceeded to considerthe evidence relating to the possession of the respondent after thealleged date of purchase by him through the sale deed in question,which was never produced before the Court, the Court of AppealCcommitted a grave error. It never applied its mind to the mainissue, in a suit based on title, whether the respondent had provedhis title to the suit property. It cannot be disputed that onus toprove his title to the property in question was on the saidrespondent. It further appears, that on behalf of the appellant, itwas pointed out before the Court of Appeal that the saidDrespondent was claiming the share of one of the co-shares in thepatti, but no co-sharer can convey title to a specific part of jointproperty. However omitted to consider the basic issues in thecase, the Court of Appeal proceeded only to consider the revenuerecords from the year 1974-75 like jamabandhi for the yearE1974-75 and Khasra Girdwari pertaining to the year 1977-79.”

E

19. In the suit stand was taken by the respondent that the suit betreated under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This Courtrepelled the above submission. In paragraph 9, the plea of respondentbased on Section 6 was rejected by this Court by making followingFobservation:

“9. We fail to appreciate as to how the principle of Section 6 ofSpecific Relief Act, 1963 can be applied in the facts andcircumstances of the present case. The respondent, who was theplaintiff, never alleged that he had been dispossessed by theappellant-Municipal Committee. On the other hand, he claimed tobe the owner of the land in question and asserted that he was inpossession over the same. He sought for permanent injunctionrestraining the appellant from interfering with his possession. Boththe parties led evidences in support of their respective claimsincluding on the question of title.”

G

20. In the present case the possession of the plaintiff was upheldby the High Court on two main reasons. Firstly, the defendant of the suit,Subramanian had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession anddeclaration for the same property against Ghani Sahib who was managerof the property which suit was dismissed and recovery of possessionhaving been rejected, defendant cannot even make a plea to be inpossession and secondly defendant in his cross-examination himselfadmitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction.The High Court in paragraph 13 of its judgment has extracted the relevantexcerpts from the statement of DW1’s deposition during cross-examination. In paragraph 13 of the judgment after quoting from depositionof DW1, the High Court held:

“13.....A bare perusal of those excerpts would clearly display asto how DW1(D1) went to the extent of half-Heartedly admittingpartly the reality) and denied the rest of the truth, without havingany responsibility to speak truth. For the purpose of achievingsuccess in the litigative battle, by hook or crook, D-1 went to theextent of pleading before this Court quite antithetical to theJudgments and decrees in O.S.No.524 of 1987 and in A.s. No.297of 1994 (Exs.A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7) that the previous suit wasnot for recovery of possession of the suit property. But, thosejudgments and decrees would clearly indicate that the earlier suitwas filed by D-1 and his three children for declaration and recoveryof possession of the entire property including the suit property. Inthe said previous suit, the first defendant and his legal heirscontended that they derived title from their original porositiesRangarajulu Naidu and obtained the suit property under a powerdeed and they failed in both the courts. As such, that is muchmore than sufficient to hold that the defendants are not in possessionof the suit-property herein.”

21. The High Court was also right in its view that it is a commonprinciple of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession ofthe property could obtain injunction. However, the matter would bedifferent, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title disputeand fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunctionrelief. The High Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of theplaint would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not narrated anything aboutthe title dispute obviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ADW1 failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly observedthat the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunctionwithout seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts ofthe present case.

22. We may also refer to judgment of this Court in Nair ServiceBSociety Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander and others, AIR 1968 SC 1165,where three-Judge Bench of this Court presided by Hidayatullah, J. hasreiterated the principle that possession is good against all but the trueowner. The principle enumerated in judgment of Judicial Committee inParry v. Clissold, (1907) AC 73, was noticed in paragraph 17 to thefollowing effect:C“(17) In our judgment this involves an incorrect approach to ourproblem. To express our meaning we may begin by reading 1907AC 73, to discover if the principle that possession is good againstall but the true owner has in any way been departed from. 1907AC 73 reaffirmed the principle by stating quite clearly:D“It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in theassumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinaryrights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the worldbut the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not comeforward and assert his title by the process of law within the periodEprescribed by the provisions of the statute of Limitation applicableto the case, his right is for ever extinguished and the possessoryowner acquires an absolute title.”

23. In paragraph 22 of the judgment, the Bench approved thedictum in 1907 AC 73.F

24. Learned counsel for the appellants has also referred tojudgment of this Court in Ajendra Prasadji Narendra Prasadji Pandeyvs. Swami K. Narayandasji and others, (2005)10 SCC 11, in whichcase this Court elaborated the cumulative factor for granting a temporaryinjunction which case is clearly distinguishable and has no application inGthe present case. Next judgment relied by the learned counsel for theappellant is in Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through LegalRepresentatives and another vs. Shivnath and others, (2019) 6SCC 82. In the above case in the suit for declaration of title andpossession this Court reiterated the principle that suit for declaration oftitle and possession the plaintiffs will succeed on the strength of theirH

own title irrespective of whether defendants proved their case or not. Inparagraph 44 and 45 following was laid down:

“44. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, thePlaintiffs-Respondents could succeed only on the strength of theirown title and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendants-Appellants. The burden is on the Plaintiffs-Respondents to establishtheir title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for adecree for declaration. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have neitherproduced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducingany other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied onby them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenueentries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but are merestatements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right ortitle on the party relying on them for proving their title.

45. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the Plaintiffs-Respondents are to succeed only on the strength of their own titleirrespective of whether the Defendants-Appellants have provedtheir case or not, in Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing SocietyLimited, (2014) 2 SCC 269, it was held as under LSCC p.275,para 15)

“15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burdenalways lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear casefor granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of thecase set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grantrelief to the Plaintiff.””

25. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down bythis Court in the above cases. But coming to the facts in the presentcase the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declarationof title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction. As notedabove, the High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the suitfiled by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering intothe title of the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view ofthe previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendantNo.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possessionof the same property. The submission of learned counsel for the appellantsthat evidence filed by the defendant were not looked into is not correct.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe trial court as well as the High Court has looked into not only the oralevidence but the exhibits which were filed on behalf of the defendantwhich is clear from the discussion made by the High Court in paragraphs13 and 16.

26. We do not find any error in the view of the High Court that itBwas not necessary to enter into the validity of Exhibits A-1 and A-2 andthe suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on thebasis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff. We, thus,do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court allowing thesecond appeal filed by the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment of theFirst Appellate Court and restoring that of trial court.C

27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal dismissed.

D

E

F

G

H