-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“Ownership Must Be Proved Where Title Is Disputed—Injunction Cannot Protect A Possession Built on Dubious Foundations” – In a crucial ruling reaffirming the principle that injunction cannot be granted where title remains clouded, the Karnataka High Court, set aside a decree of permanent injunction granted in favour of a claimant whose title was found dubious. The judgment was delivered by Justice Jyoti Mulimani arising from a civil suit concerning possession rights over a property in Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru.
The High Court emphatically observed, “Where a plaintiff’s title is clouded and involves complicated questions of fact and law, the court must direct the parties to seek declaration of title rather than grant a simple injunction based on possession.”
Sale by Power of Attorney Holder Without Production of Power Document Raises Red Flags
The dispute originated from a property allegedly sold by one Sri Raman, acting as power of attorney holder on behalf of Muttayya and his sons. The plaintiff, Smt. Indramma, had purchased the property in 2012 and instituted a suit for bare injunction after alleged interference by the defendants claiming ancestral rights. The defendants contended that the sale was invalid as no valid title existed in favour of the plaintiff, especially since the plaintiff failed to produce the Power of Attorney (PoA) on which the sale was based.
Justice Jyoti Mulimani noted, “The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a sale deed executed by a Power of Attorney holder. Yet, no document of Power of Attorney was ever produced. Even PW-2 (Raman) admitted that the PoA was misplaced. Such an assertion without proof cannot be the foundation for an injunction.”
Whether Possession Alone Could Grant Injunctive Relief Where Ownership Was Under Cloud
The key legal question was whether a person could obtain a permanent injunction merely based on possession, even when their title was seriously disputed. The trial court had granted injunction, emphasizing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. However, Justice Mulimani noted that the dispute was not a trivial or feeble objection but a significant challenge over title, thus necessitating a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim.
Quoting the Supreme Court precedent in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, the court reiterated:
“If there is a serious cloud on title or complicated questions of fact and law involved, the parties must be relegated to a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, and bare injunction cannot be granted.”
Dismissal of Additional Evidence Plea: Post-suit Documents Not Admissible to Cure Title Defect
The plaintiff had also attempted to introduce additional documents like tax receipts and B-Katha records during the appeal. The High Court categorically rejected this move under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, observing:
“Production of post-suit documents or Xerox copies cannot validate defective title. The appeal court cannot be a forum to introduce new materials to cure fatal defects in the plaintiff’s title.”
The court further ruled that such attempts failed the legal criteria under Order 41 Rule 27, which only allows additional evidence if crucial evidence was earlier wrongfully excluded or unavailable despite due diligence.
Trial Court Decree Overturned, Suit Dismissed
Conclusively, Justice Jyoti Mulimani set aside the trial court decree, stating:
“The plaintiff’s title being under serious dispute, and possession claimed without valid ownership, this court finds it necessary to overturn the trial court’s finding. The suit for injunction is dismissed.”
ConclusionThis judgment is significant for property law jurisprudence, reinforcing that bare possession does not entitle a claimant to injunction where their ownership remains questionable. The High Court upheld the essential distinction between possessory rights and ownership, ensuring that injunctions are not granted to parties who cannot establish legitimate title.
Date of Decision: 8th July 2025
