THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1038 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.S.No.66 of 1996 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Piler against the respondent for the relief of injunction in respect of Ac.0.75 cents of land in Survey No.228/6 of Cherukuvaripalli Village, Sodam Mandal, Chittoor District. He narrated the manner in which he acquired rights over the property and stated that he is in continuous possession of the land for the past seven years before the suit was filed. Alleging that the respondent is attempting to interfere with his possession on the basis of some unrelated record, he prayed for the relief of injunction. The respondent filed a written statement opposing the suit. He pleaded that the property was acquired by his ancestors. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 20.06.2000. The respondent filed A.S.No.13 of 2000 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler. The appeal was allowed through judgment, dated 07.08.2006, and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. Hence, this second appeal. Heard Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Only one issue was framed by the trial Court, namely “whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction, as prayed for”. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were filed. On behalf of the respondent, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B14 were filed. The report of the Commissioner and the sketch prepared by him were taken on record as Exs.C1 and C2. The suit was decreed and the lower appellate Court framed two points for its consideration, namely (a) whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of permanent injunction as prayed for; and (b) whether the lower Court is justified in granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for and whether the lower Court had committed any jurisdictional error in doing so. The appeal was allowed. In a suit for injunction, it is mostly the question of possession that is to be determined and hardly there would be any scope for interference in the second appeal. In the instant case, the trial Court recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant is in possession of the property and that the respondent failed to prove his possession over it. Detailed discussion was undertaken with reference to each and every document relied upon by the parties and the oral evidence adduced on their behalf. The lower appellate Court being final Court, on facts, was entitled to express its own view even by re-appreciating the evidence. However, the relief to be granted by it was supposed to be in consonance with the findings. After discussing the evidence on record and the contentions of the parties, the lower appellate Court expressed its view on the important question, namely possession over the suit schedule property as under: “No doubt, the defendant failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing the suit and the plaintiff filed cist receipt to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land during fasli year 1403. Ex.A11 reveals this fact.” Having held that the appellant is in possession of the property, the lower appellate Court reversed the decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that the appellant failed to prove his title, little realising that the suit for injunction is not the form to express final view on the question of title. It is no doubt true that the relief of injunction cannot be granted against a true owner. However, where the plaintiff in a suit for injunction bases his claim on certain documents, pleading title and prove his possession, the principle cannot be extended to such cases. It is only where the possession of a plaintiff in a suit for injunction is bereft of any legal background, that he can be denied the relief vis-à-vis the true owner. When serious dispute exists as to the title between plaintiff and defendant, the finding on possession must determine the course of the suit, leaving it open to the aggrieved parties to seek the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. In this regard, the lower appellate Court committed a serious error in denying the relief of perpetual injunction even after finding that the appellant is in possession of the property. That constitutes a substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and the decree passed by the lower appellate Court is set aside. The result would be that the decree for perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court is revived. This, however, will be subject to the relief, which the respondent may claim in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.12.2011. kdl