Possession at the Time of Suit Filing Is Crucial for Injunction Relief - Ownership is secondary: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Ownership is secondary in injunction suits—plaintiffs must establish possession on date of suit filing", ruled Justice Virinder Aggarwal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing a well-settled principle of civil law while dismissing an appeal filed over a three-decade-old property dispute.

On August 26, 2025, the High Court in Parkash and Others vs. Raj Kumar @ Raja (Since deceased) through LRs and Others, RSA-1542-1993, declined the appellants’ plea for injunction, holding that mere ownership does not entitle a party to injunction if they are not in actual possession of the property at the time of instituting the suit. The judgment reiterates a foundational requirement for equitable relief in civil jurisprudence.

"Injunction Cannot Be Granted in Favour of a Party Not in Possession"

Reversing the trial court’s mandatory injunction decree and affirming the findings of the First Appellate Court, the High Court observed:

“A party who is not in possession cannot seek an injunction simpliciter, and the appropriate remedy in such circumstances would be to institute a suit for possession in accordance with law.”

The Court emphasized that the primary factor in suits for permanent or mandatory injunction is possession, not ownership.

The appellants (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, asserting ownership and possession over a 5-marla plot (Killa No. 175/17/5) situated in the abadi of Narwana. They sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and requested demolition of any construction raised by the latter.

The defendants contested the suit, stating that the land was legally transferred multiple times: from plaintiff Parkash Kaur to Saroj Devi (30.06.1980), from Saroj Devi to Sadhu Ram (23.01.1981), and then exchanged by Sadhu Ram with the defendants in December 1981. They claimed lawful possession and stated that any construction was being raised over land legally acquired.

The trial court, however, decreed the suit in the plaintiffs’ favour based primarily on a 1989 surety bond/undertaking given by the defendants during the pendency of the suit, agreeing to remove any construction without claiming compensation. This formed the basis for ordering restoration of possession to the plaintiffs.

The first appellate court reversed this, finding the plaintiffs had failed to prove possession. This led to the current Regular Second Appeal (RSA) before the High Court.

Whether plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land at the time of filing the suit?

Justice Aggarwal held that the learned trial court erred by relying solely on the defendants’ undertaking given in 1989 and ignoring the legal requirement that possession on the date of suit filing is essential for claiming injunction.

"The question of title in an injunction suit is the secondary aspect. The primary aspect is whether the plaintiffs are proved in possession of suit property at the time of institution of the suit."

This key passage from the appellate court’s judgment was cited with approval.

No Evidence of Possession from Plaintiffs

The Court noted that the plaintiffs neither pleaded any act of possession nor construction in their plaint. Their vague claim that they had constructed boundary walls and rooms was not supported by pleadings or consistent testimony.

"It is nowhere asserted by the plaintiffs that the boundary wall constructed by them is existing on the suit property... This statement of Parkash Devi (PW-3) does not inspire confidence and is liable to be excluded from consideration being beyond pleadings."

On the other hand, the defendants presented consistent evidence of long-standing possession, including existing construction, further corroborated by the plaintiffs’ own witnesses.

Construction by Defendants Was Prior to Suit Filing

While the plaintiffs relied on the fact that defendants laid a roof on the two rooms during the suit's pendency (with court permission), the High Court held this did not prove that the walls or boundary were constructed during litigation.

"The permission of the Court to lay roof on the undertaking of defendant set No.1 is not to be misunderstood... The boundary wall and two rooms without roof were already existing on the suit property at the time of institution of suit."

Thus, the trial court's mandatory injunction was found to be erroneous as it failed to assess actual possession and wrongly treated the undertaking as an admission of dispossession.

Suit for Possession Was the Appropriate Remedy

In a decisive conclusion, the High Court observed:

"It is well-settled in law that a party who is not in possession cannot seek an injunction simpliciter."

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which had refused injunction due to lack of possession, was upheld.

• The plaintiffs failed to prove possession of the plot at the time of filing the suit.

• Ownership, even if presumed, was not sufficient to claim injunction without possession.

• The relief of injunction was rightly denied by the First Appellate Court.

• Plaintiffs’ remedy, if any, lies in a suit for possession, not an injunction suit.

Date of Decision: 26th August, 2025