When Defendants Breach Compromise and Encroach on Abadi Deh Land, Mandatory Injunction Can Follow Even If Not Prayed Originally: Himachal Pradesh High Court

“The Court can mould the relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC when the pleadings and evidence disclose encroachment during trial… the defendants cannot claim surprise” - Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below which decreed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellants for illegal construction over Abadi Deh land, declaring that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Justice Bipin Chander Negi, while dismissing the second appeal, invoked the well-established principle that concurrent factual findings based on reliable evidence and clear pleadings are not to be disturbed in second appeal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the courts below had rightly decreed both forms of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, who had proved title, possession, and encroachment by the defendants.

“Violation of Compromise Terms by Raising Construction Without Measurement Justifies Equitable Relief”

“The defendants violated the compromise by commencing construction without the agreed-upon measurement… The plaintiff promptly filed suit to protect his rights”

The central dispute concerned Khasra Nos. 44 and 54, part of the Abadi Deh area in Kullu District. The plaintiff claimed ownership over Khasra No. 44, while Khasra No. 54 was admitted to be village Abadi land in which both parties had joint proprietary rights. A boundary wall dispute arose in May 2012, resulting in a compromise dated 21.05.2012 (Ex. PW1/D), wherein both parties agreed not to interfere with each other’s property and to get the land measured.

However, the defendants violated this compromise by starting new construction on the disputed site without measurement, prompting the plaintiff to approach the court. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants encroached upon the plaintiff’s portion, marked ‘ABCD’ in the site plan Ex. PW3/A, which was proved by the Architect (PW-3).

The Court observed that such post-pleading encroachments, once raised in the replication and supported by evidence, entitled the plaintiff to mandatory relief.

“The Court can mould the relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to grant a mandatory injunction for demolition of the unauthorized structure... the defendants cannot claim surprise, as the issue was squarely raised in the pleadings and evidence.”

“When Plaintiff Proves Title and Encroachment, Courts Can Protect Possession Even on Joint Abadi Land”

“The plaintiff has proved his title and possession over the suit land and the defendants’ illegal encroachment on portion ‘ABCD’”

The High Court affirmed the findings of both the trial court and first appellate court, which had decreed the suit based on the Jamabandis (Ext. PW1/B and PW1/C), compromise (Ext. PW1/D), and the unrebutted site plan (PW3/A). The plaintiff's oral evidence was found trustworthy and consistent, particularly the testimony of PW-2 and PW-4, who confirmed the defendants’ encroachment and the construction during the suit.

The defendants' witnesses were found unreliable and inconsistent. DW-1 gave evidence contradictory to the defendants’ own written statement, while the description of the property boundaries and construction by DW-1 and DW-2 was riddled with inconsistencies.

“The defendants’ evidence is unreliable... Their witness gave testimony contrary to their own admission... and provided irreconcilable descriptions of the property’s boundaries.”

Given these findings, the High Court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled not only to injunctive relief but also restoration of possession by mandatory injunction.

“No Substantial Question of Law Arises When Findings Are Based on Proper Evidence and Application of Law”

“In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, for the consideration of the Court”

Dismissing the appeal under Section 100 CPC, the Court reiterated the limited scope of second appeals. Since both courts below had rendered well-reasoned findings based on documentary and oral evidence, no question of law—let alone a substantial one—arose for consideration.

The Court held that none of the appellants’ arguments regarding misreading of evidence, non-maintainability of the suit, or absence of a mandatory injunction prayer held merit, especially in light of the clear factual matrix and the Court’s power under Order VII Rule 7 CPC to grant appropriate relief.

“The suit was maintainable and based on a valid cause of action... Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.”

Restoration Ordered, Appeal Dismissed, Findings Affirmed

The High Court affirmed the plaintiff's right to a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit land, and a mandatory injunction directing them to demolish the illegal structure and restore possession of portion ‘ABCD’.

This judgment reinforces the principle that encroachment on joint Abadi land, especially in violation of prior compromise, cannot be tolerated, and that courts are empowered to mould reliefs as necessary to do complete justice, particularly when evidence arises during trial justifying additional protection.

Date of Decision: 03 November 2025