Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute

If the Land is Unidentifiable, Injunction Becomes Legally Unsustainable - Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench ruled that a permanent injunction cannot be granted without a clear finding of possession. Setting aside the relief granted by the lower appellate court, the court held that since the land in dispute was not identifiable, granting an injunction was legally unjustified.

Justice Rajnish Kumar, deciding Second Appeal No. 12 of 2022, observed that "a plaintiff seeking permanent injunction must establish lawful possession at the time of the suit. When the land itself is unidentifiable, granting an injunction is nothing but a flawed exercise of judicial discretion." The court further ruled that "an injunction cannot be granted merely on the basis of a partition decree from a separate proceeding unless possession is independently proven."

The dispute arose from a long-standing land conflict in Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, where the plaintiff, Smt. Vijay Laxmi, sought permanent injunction and cancellation of a sale deed dated 12th November 2007. The trial court dismissed the suit, noting that the plaintiff failed to challenge an earlier sale deed dated 20th January 2000, which formed the foundation of the disputed transaction. The court found that since the plaintiff had accepted the earlier sale without contesting it, her challenge to the later transaction was legally unsustainable.

The lower appellate court, while maintaining the trial court’s rejection of the cancellation suit, still granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court found this approach contradictory, ruling that "once a court finds that the land in question is unidentifiable, granting an injunction in respect of the same land is legally impermissible. The relief of injunction cannot exist in a vacuum."

The court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, where the Supreme Court held that "a plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction must establish lawful possession on the date of filing. Mere claims of title or ownership are insufficient." Referring to Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta (2020) 19 SCC 119, the High Court reiterated that "injunctions are granted only to those in actual possession. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, who must produce substantive evidence rather than relying on assumptions."

The High Court found the lower appellate court’s ruling legally unsound, stating that "judicial discretion must be exercised based on conclusive findings, not contradictions. A partition decree from another proceeding does not automatically confer possession in an injunction suit." The court further emphasized that "permanent injunctions serve as protective measures, not declarations of ownership. If a plaintiff neither challenges the foundational transaction nor proves possession, no legal basis exists for granting an injunction."

Allowing the appeal in part, the High Court set aside the injunction while upholding the dismissal of the cancellation suit. The court ruled that "a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises. Since the lower appellate court granted relief in contradiction to its own findings, interference was warranted."

Reaffirming the principle that possession must be conclusively proven before an injunction can be granted, the court declared that "when land is unidentifiable, injunctive relief cannot be granted based on assumptions. The law does not recognize ambiguous claims without clear factual support."

Date of decision: 13/02/2025