Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court

A Suit for Permanent Injunction Without Declaration of Title is Not Maintainable Where Ownership is in Dispute – Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, in the case of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Sri Uttaradi Mutt (Regular Second Appeal No. 2892 of 2006), overturned the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, which had granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff-Mutt.

Justice E.S. Indiresh ruled that "a bare injunction suit cannot stand when the title or possession of the plaintiff is clouded." The plaintiff-Mutt had failed to seek a declaration of ownership over the disputed property, despite the land grant being cancelled by the Government in 1996 and possession allegedly resumed by the authorities. This judgment underscores the principle that when ownership is in dispute, the plaintiff must seek a declaratory relief alongside an injunction.

The case revolved around the Brindavana of Sri Narahariteertha Swamy, situated on government land granted to Sri Uttaradi Mutt in 1971. The plaintiff-Mutt alleged that the defendant-Mutt interfered with its exclusive right to perform religious rituals (Aradhana) at the Brindavana, leading to the suit for permanent injunction.

The defendant-Mutt argued that the Government had cancelled the land grant in 1996 and resumed possession, claiming that the plaintiff-Mutt had no lawful possession or title to the property. The plaintiff-Mutt, however, did not seek a declaration of ownership in the suit, which was dismissed by the High Court after finding that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had failed to consider this critical aspect.

Justice Indiresh emphasized, "When the plaintiff’s title is in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. The plaintiff must seek a declaratory relief to remove the cloud over its title."

Permanent Injunction – Suit Without Declaration
The court critically examined the plaintiff’s failure to seek declaratory relief. Justice Indiresh relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anathulla Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, where it was held that:
"To file a suit for bare injunction without claiming a declaration of title is unsustainable when the defendant disputes the plaintiff's title or possession and the title itself is clouded."

The High Court observed that the Government had cancelled the grant of the disputed land in 1996 and resumed possession. Despite this, the plaintiff-Mutt proceeded with a suit for injunction without claiming a declaration of its title or possession.

"Once the title is in question, as it is here due to the cancellation of the land grant and subsequent proceedings, the plaintiff’s claim to relief without addressing this fundamental dispute cannot succeed," the court held.

Possession of Land – Evidence and Admissions
The court found that the plaintiff-Mutt’s own witness, PW1, admitted in cross-examination that the Government had resumed possession of the land in question on 21 December 1996, after cancelling the grant. PW1 stated, "It is true that, on 21.12.1996, the Government resumed the possession of this land from our Mutt."

This admission directly contradicted the plaintiff’s claim of possession and undermined the foundation of its suit. Justice Indiresh cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam (1974) 1 SCC 242, which held that "admissions made in pleadings or judicial proceedings are the best evidence against the party making them and are binding unless successfully withdrawn or proved to be erroneous."

Despite this, the lower courts ignored this critical admission and erroneously granted the injunction. Justice Indiresh remarked, "The admission by PW1 that the Government had resumed possession was binding and decisive. The plaintiff-Mutt failed to prove any reacquisition of possession after 1996."

Land Grant – Pending Proceedings
The court also took note of the ongoing legal proceedings concerning the validity of the 1971 land grant to the plaintiff-Mutt. The Deputy Commissioner had overturned the cancellation of the grant in 2006, but the matter was still pending before the Karnataka High Court in writ proceedings.

Justice Indiresh clarified, "The pending writ proceedings further cast doubt on the plaintiff’s title. In such circumstances, the plaintiff-Mutt ought to have sought a declaration to establish its ownership before seeking an injunction."

The judgment reinforced that without resolving the underlying title dispute, an injunction could not be granted. "The cloud over the plaintiff’s title and possession made it imperative for the plaintiff to seek declaratory relief. A bare injunction suit was legally unsustainable," the court held.

High Court Jurisdiction – Section 100 CPC – Perversity in Findings
The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows interference in concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in cases of legal perversity. Justice Indiresh observed, "Concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be reversed if they are based on misappreciation of evidence or ignorance of material facts."

Citing the Supreme Court in Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi (2016) 3 SCC 78, the court reiterated, "A finding is perverse if it is based on no evidence, misreads the evidence, or ignores admissions that go to the root of the matter."

In this case, both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to consider:

PW1’s admission regarding the Government’s resumption of possession.
The necessity of joining the Government as a party to the suit.
The legal requirement for declaratory relief when title is disputed.
Justice Indiresh concluded, "The lower courts’ findings were perverse as they ignored the plaintiff’s admission and misappreciated the evidence. This warrants interference under Section 100 CPC."

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts’ judgments, and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction. The court held:

"The plaintiff-Mutt’s failure to seek declaratory relief, despite the cloud over its title and possession, renders the suit for permanent injunction unsustainable. The concurrent findings of the lower courts are set aside due to their failure to properly evaluate the evidence and legal requirements."

The appeal was thus allowed, and the plaintiff’s original suit was dismissed.

This judgment reiterates key principles of civil law concerning the maintainability of injunction suits. A plaintiff must seek a declaration of title when ownership is in dispute or under a cloud. The Karnataka High Court’s ruling also emphasizes the importance of properly evaluating admissions made during proceedings and the necessity of joining all necessary parties to a suit.

As Justice Indiresh aptly observed, "Injunctions are equitable remedies, and equity demands that a plaintiff establish a clear and undisputed legal right before seeking such relief."

Date of Decision: 9 January 2025