Supreme Court on Seeking Declaration of Title in a Suit for Permanent Injunction

 

INTRODUCTION

 

On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan, Civil Appeal Nos. 5575-5576 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed whether a suit simpliciter for permanent injunction without claiming declaration of title is maintainable or not?

 

IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

This question becomes important in light of Order II Rule 2 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that provides that “every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit the jurisdiction of any court.” Thus, it is necessary that when a suit is filed, it must include the entirety of the claims and reliefs sought. Failure to omit the same shall lead to relinquishment of such claim.

 

Further, Permanent Injunction also called as Perpetual Injunction, could be traced to Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that provides that “a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.” The facts of the case are not relevant for the purposes and hence, the same are not being discussed here. In this backdrop, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

 

Firstly, the Court observed that “where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit form injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession.” However, “if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.”

 

Secondly, the Court noted that though the normal rule is that questions of title will not be decided in suits for injunction but in cases where there are pleadings and evidence led regarding title and if the facts of the case are straightforward, then the Court is competent to decide the issue regarding title.

 

Thirdly, the Court further observed that in suits for injunction, de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title and if that could not be done, then “the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in the suit for mere injunction.”

 

Fourthly, the Court cited the case of Jharkhand State Housing Board v. Didar Singh & Another, (2019) 17 SCC 692, wherein it was held that “a suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”

 

Thus, I hope that the conundrum relating to seeking declaration of title while filing a suit for permanent injunction is clear by now.

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

 

In conclusion, I would like to say that Civil Procedure in India is both simple and complex at the same time. It is simple when the facts of a particular case are simple and straightforward. However, when the facts are complex, then it becomes imperative for the Court to go into different questions such as that of title, to establish whether the claim sought by the Plaintiff is liable to be granted or not.