Injunction Without Possession or Declaration Not Maintainable: Supreme Court Declines Relief to Plaintiff Relying Solely on Will

“Where possession is with the defendant and ownership is disputed, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration and recovery of possession,” held the Supreme Court on October 7, 2025, modifying the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by the High Court and trial court. The Court held that though the Will was proved, the plaintiff’s failure to seek declaratory relief and recovery of possession made the claim for an injunction legally untenable.

Supreme Court clarified that title disputes involving possession cannot be adjudicated through a suit for injunction simpliciter, especially where the plaintiff admits the defendant’s possession and does not seek declaration of ownership or recovery.

“Mere Proof of Will Does Not Confer Right to Injunction When Possession Is Not With Plaintiff”

The central controversy involved 1.74½ acres of dry land, allegedly bequeathed by one Rangaswamy Naidu equally to his children, including the plaintiff Rajammal, through a Will dated 30.09.1985. Rajammal filed a suit for injunction alone, to prevent her brother (defendant) from alienating or interfering with the property.

The Supreme Court noted that both in pleadings and oral evidence, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant was in possession of the suit land:

“The plaintiff in her evidence clearly stated that property covered by the Will is in the possession of Munuswamy and Govindrajan, her brothers.”

In such circumstances, the Court ruled: “Though the Will is proved, the right of the testator to bequeath the property is still under a cloud. Even if the title is established, there should have been a recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff.”

Hence, an injunction restraining interference with possession was held to be unsustainable, as the plaintiff was not in possession and did not seek the necessary declaratory and recovery reliefs.

“Disputed Title Requires Declaratory Relief – Courts Cannot Decree Possession by Injunction Alone”

The trial court and High Court had both proceeded on the assumption that title followed the Will, and therefore granted injunctions in favour of the plaintiff. The High Court specifically upheld the Will and restored the trial court’s decree, but the Supreme Court found this approach flawed in law:

“While asserting a Will and title on its strength, there should have been a declaration of title sought, especially when the contention of the defendant was that he came into the property as a co-owner and then occupies it with absolute rights.”

The Court emphasized that:

• The plaintiff admitted lack of possession

• The plaintiff did not seek declaratory relief of ownership

• The defendant claimed possession as co-owner, and even referred to a pre-existing division of the property

• The title itself was under cloud, since the property was initially in the grandmother’s name

Thus, without possession and without a declaration of title, the injunction against interference was legally impermissible.

Tenancy Plea Rejected as Inconsistent and Unsupported

The plaintiff had earlier tried to explain the defendant’s possession by alleging that her brother was inducted as a tenant by their father. However, this claim was inconsistent and unsupported:

“The substituted plaintiffs despite taking up a plea of the Will executed by the deceased father in the amended plaint, the proceedings were not continued and the suit stood dismissed for default.”

The Supreme Court noted that in a prior suit (OS No. 895 of 1984), the father had sought eviction and arrears of rent, but the case was dismissed for default. Importantly, the defendant had consistently denied any tenancy, claiming co-ownership and later exclusive possession.

The Court observed: “The inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s case on possession and title further weakened her claim for injunction.”

Injunction Against Alienation Upheld – Liberty Granted to File Proper Suit

While declining to uphold the injunction against interference with possession, the Court retained the injunction against alienation or encumbrance of the property, noting that neither party had obtained any formal declaration of title.

“The injunction against alienation is perfectly in order since the defendant too has not sought for a declaration of title.”

However, to resolve the impasse, the Court granted liberty to both parties: “Since a stalemate is created, with the ownership not having been declared in favour of either of the parties, also considering the relationship, we reserve liberty to either of the parties to seek declaration of title and consequential possession.”

Such suits, the Court directed, must be filed within three months, and: “If a fresh proceeding is initiated, the same would be considered afresh untrammelled by the findings in the present proceedings.”

“Badly Drafted Suit Cannot Be Rewritten by Courts”: Clarity on Legal Drafting in Possession and Title Disputes

Criticizing the ill-drafted plaint and the lack of proper reliefs, the Court emphasized that: “The ill-drafted plaint and the clear admissions made in the witness box ought to have restricted the trial court and the High Court from granting an injunction against interference.”

The judgment is a strong reminder that civil suits seeking possession and protection based on title must include appropriate prayers—especially declaration of title and recovery of possession, when the plaintiff is not in physical control of the property.

Proof of Will Is Not Enough Without Seeking Possession and Declaration

The Supreme Court’s ruling sets a clear legal boundary—mere proof of a Will does not justify a decree of injunction when:

• Possession lies with the defendant

• Title is disputed

• No declaration of ownership or recovery is sought

While upholding the injunction against alienation, the Court dismissed the rest of the injunction relief and granted liberty to both parties to properly assert their claims in a fresh suit within 3 months.

“No alienation shall be made by both parties or the subject property encumbered,” the Court ordered until a proper adjudication is made in a newly instituted suit.

Date of Decision: October 7, 2025