Admission by Defendant is the Best Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates Protection of Possession in Injunction Suits

"Boundary Discrepancy Cannot Defeat a Proven Case of Possession" —Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirmed the principle that an injunction based on proven possession must not be disturbed merely on the basis of technical boundary disputes. Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi restored the decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, setting aside the reversal made by the first appellate court. The Court emphasized that "admission by the defendant regarding possession is the strongest evidence available and cannot be brushed aside lightly."

The plaintiff, Shaik Attar Ghouse, had filed two suits for permanent injunction alleging possession of a patta site purchased on December 21, 1979, and construction of a vegetable shop. Although the Trial Court decreed the suits in his favor, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree primarily citing discrepancies in boundary descriptions. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the High Court in second appeal.

The High Court focused on whether the plaintiff's possession, clearly admitted by the defendant's own witness, was sufficient to sustain an injunction decree. Justice Chakravarthi observed that "the First Appellate Court committed a serious error in ignoring the clear admissions of the defendants' own witness and erroneously relying on boundary discrepancies to dismiss a proven case of possession."
The Court reaffirmed the settled position of law that "an admission made by a party is the best evidence against him" and that "an admission regarding possession cannot be negated by speculative arguments about land boundaries."
Pointing specifically to the testimony of DW-2, the Court noted, "DW-2 clearly admitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the site and that a shop had been existing for long prior to the dispute. Such an admission cannot be wishfully ignored." The Court further stated, "Courts must protect possession when proved by credible evidence and reinforced by admissions, without indulging in hyper-technicalities about documentary descriptions."
The High Court criticized the lower appellate court's finding that the plaintiff had hurriedly constructed the shop just before the Commissioner's visit. Justice Chakravarthi recorded, "No material exists to support such a conjecture. If the defendants truly believed this, they ought to have objected immediately upon receiving the Commissioner's report, which they failed to do."
The Court categorically observed that in suits for injunction, "it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove title. Proof of possession alone, unless otherwise defeated by strong evidence of title in the defendant, is sufficient."

The Court reinstated the decree granted by the Trial Court, noting that all four Commissioner's reports corroborated the plaintiff’s possession. The Court held that "it was beyond cavil that the plaintiff was in possession since 1977-78, as also admitted by the defendant's witness," and that "technical boundary objections raised decades later cannot defeat actual possession established on ground reality."

Justice Chakravarthi remarked that "the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that possession is a question of fact, not a matter dependent on recitals in sale deeds."

The High Court further emphasized that, "a party in settled possession must be protected against all threats, except by due process of law," citing established precedents. The Court thus restored the decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession.

Reinforcing a foundational principle of civil law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a clear message that admissions by defendants regarding possession are binding and decisive. The Court's ruling reiterates that minor boundary confusions cannot erase strong, consistent evidence of actual possession, especially when reinforced by the adversary's own admissions. As Justice Chakravarthi concluded, "Possession must be protected by the courts when proved independently and admitted by the adversary, without being clouded by technicalities."
The judgment marks an important reaffirmation of the doctrine that possession, once proved and admitted, entitles a plaintiff to protection under law irrespective of minor documentary imperfections.

Date of Decision: 28th April, 2025