Finding Of Title Cannot Be Recorded In Injunction Simpliciter Suit Absent Specific Pleadings & Issues: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Finding of title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction unless there are necessary pleadings and an appropriate issue regarding title. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a binding finding on a question of title," High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant ruling, held that in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the court’s inquiry is strictly confined to the question of settled possession rather than ownership.

A bench of Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao observed that in such proceedings, the issue of title is neither directly nor substantially in issue, and the court must refrain from rendering binding findings on title unless the parties have specifically pleaded and joined issue on that aspect.

The litigation originated from a suit for permanent injunction (O.S. No. 174 of 2004) filed by the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the absolute owners and possessors of the property through a registered sale deed and a subsequent gift deed. The defendants, asserting that the property was joint family/coparcenary property, contested the plaintiffs' exclusive right and argued that the transactions were nominal. While the trial court and the first appellate court concurrently decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from interference except under due process of law, the unsuccessful defendant approached the High Court in a second appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether the lower courts were justified in granting an injunction based on documents whose validity was disputed by the defendants. The court was also called upon to determine whether a finding on title could be recorded in a suit for injunction simpliciter and the extent of the High Court's interference in concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 of the CPC.

Injunction Simpliciter Focuses Only On Possession

The Court noted that the fundamental nature of a suit for injunction simpliciter is the protection of possession. The bench observed that in such suits, the prayer for injunction is decided with reference to the finding on possession as on the date of the suit. Since the plaintiffs were found to be in physical possession, supported by registered deeds and revenue records like pattadar passbooks, their possession was legally recognized and protected against high-handed interference.

No Investigation Into Title Without Specific Pleadings

The bench emphasized a settled legal principle regarding the boundaries of judicial inquiry in injunction suits. The Court clarified that where the pleadings are absent regarding title and no specific issue has been framed by the trial court to that effect, it is not open for the court to investigate the intricacies of ownership. The judgment underscores that title is only a collateral consideration in these matters to explain the nature of possession.

"Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a binding finding on a question of title."

Concurrent Findings Of Fact Generally Binding Under Section 100 CPC

The High Court reiterated the limited scope of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, stating that it cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court, which is the final court of facts. Citing the Apex Court’s decisions in Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh and Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, the Court held that it cannot substitute its own opinion unless the lower court's conclusions are perverse, contrary to mandatory legal provisions, or based on no evidence.

Effect Of Failed Partition Suit On Possession Claims

The Court took significant note of the fact that the defendant had previously filed a partition suit (O.S. No. 116 of 2003) claiming a share in the same property, which was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court. This failure to establish a right to partition further weakened the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs' possession was not exclusive or was merely nominal.

"The physical possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property under the registered sale deeds by the date of filing of the suit is undisputed by the defendants, and their possession is recognised by the revenue authorities by issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds."

Exceptions To The Rule Of Non-Interference

While affirming the general rule of non-interference in concurrent findings, Justice Rao detailed the specific exceptions where the High Court might intervene. These include instances where material evidence was ignored, wrong inferences were drawn from proved facts by applying law erroneously, or where the burden of proof was wrongly cast. Finding that none of these exceptions applied to the present case, the Court saw no reason to disturb the lower courts' decrees.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. The Court concluded that since the plaintiffs established settled possession as of the date of the suit, they were entitled to a permanent injunction. The ruling reinforces that the appropriate remedy for a party claiming title in an injunction suit is to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and partition, rather than challenging possession in a summary-style injunction proceeding.

Date of Decision: 15 June 2026