Case: A. SUBRAMANIAN &amp; ANR Vs. R. PANNERSELVAM

The plaintiff, R. Pannerselvam, who is the respondent in this appeal, filed O.S. No.188 of 2002 in the Court of District Munsif, Namakkal praying for permanent injunction interdicting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The suit property was measuring 1777-1/2 sq.ft. comprising in Survey No.172/1 situated at Kalappanaickenpatti Village. Plaintiffs case in the suit was that suit property originally belonged to one Dhasi Naidu son of Thalama Naidu who went to Sri Lanka as a Farm Labour and died at Sri Lanka. The son of Dhasi Naidu, Krishnasamy Naidu came to India in 1981 and entrusted the suit property and other properties to one Ghani Sahib, who had been managing and enjoying the properties.3. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property by registered deed on 16.07.2001 for a valid consideration from the descendants of Dhasi Naidu. The plaintiffs further case was that the first defendant was formerly military serviceman, and the second defendant who was son-in-law of the first defendant, working as constable in police department, attempted to disturb the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed. The documents filed along with the plaint were power of attorney executed by legal heirs of Dhasi Naidu dated 22.05.2001, sale deed dated 16.07.2001 and sale deed dated 14.03.1946 in favour of Dhasi Naidu and house tax receipt dated 27.02.2001.4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement refuting the claim of the plaintiff; defendant admitted that suit property belonged to Dhasi Naidu. The defendant pleaded that registered sale deed dated 16.07.2001 itself is a fabricated and forged one. So called legal heirs-descendants of Dhasi Naidu as alleged in sale deed are fictious and are not true legal heirs of the said Dhasi Naidu. The title of the suit property is itself questionable, the plaintiff along with Ghani Sahib has fabricated two special powers and plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of C.P.C. with the said documents had filed suit. The defendants in the written statement had set up the claim that Dhasi Naidus son Sanjeevi Naidu had entrusted the suit property and other properties to one P. Rangaraju Naidu by a registered power of attorney, who later died, leaving behind his only legal heir Mrs. Arjuna Devi, who died leaving behind her daughters, Nalanda, Indira and Gunabarathi. Defendant No.1 on behalf of her three daughters filed a suit against the Ghani Sahib questioning his tenancy which suit was dismissed and had been taken in appeal being A.S.No.297 of 1994.5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. Defendant examined DW.1 to DW.6. Plaintiff filed seven exhibits. The trial court framed the following three issues:a) Is the permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is available to him?b) Is the statement of the defendants that the plaintiff is not the real owner of the suit property correct?c) What are the other reliefs available to the plaintiff?6. The trial court held that power of attorney dated 22.05.2001 was prepared at Sri Lanka and registered at Namakkal Sub-Registrars office. The documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff are Exhibits PW1 and PW2. The trial court held that the plaintiff has right over the property, the possession of plaintiff was also found proved. The trial court decreed the suit.7. The defendants filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Namakkal being A.S. No.172 of 2005. The First Appellate Court entered into the validity of power of attorney Exhibits PW1 and PW2 and observed that Exhibit PW1 is in circumstances by suspicious surrounding. The First Appellate Court, however, came to a conclusion that power deed written abroad need not be registered. The First Appellate Court, further, came to the conclusion that execution and authentication of power of attorney, Exhibit PW1 having not been proved, the sale deed Exhibit PW2 is also adversely affected. Hence, plaintiff has failed to establish his title over the suit property. The First Appellate Court has, further, found that defendant No.1 had instituted O.S.No.524 of 1987 which was for the same property in which defendant No.1 had claimed declaration and possession of the property for himself and her three daughters which suit having been dismissed, the defendant has also not been able to prove that suit property belonged to the three daughters of defendant No.1 and possession lies with them. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove his title. Aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court the plaintiff has filed the second appeal.8. The High Court vide its judgment dated 28.04.2009 allowed the second appeal by deciding three substantial questions of law affirming the decree of trial court granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The High Court found that defendant having filed Original Suit No.524 of 1987 for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property which was dismissed by the trial court against which A.S. No.297 of 1994 having also been dismissed, the finality was achieved to the previous proceedings that defendant has neither title nor in possession of the suit property and the possession of the plaintiff having been admitted by the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff deserved to be decreed. The High Court was further of the view that the First Appellate Court ought not to have entered into the validity of the Exhibits A-1 and A-2. The High Court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the defendants have come up in this appeal.

Reasoning: 17. The High Court in its judgment has rightly referred to the earlier litigation and held that in view of the findings in the earlier suit filed by Subramanian and his three daughters it is sufficient to hold that defendants are not in possession of the suit property. The High Court has also rightly observed that plaintiffs possession is based on the admission of the defendant himself made in the suit. In paragraph 24, the High Court has held:24.....The Plaintiffs possession is based on admissions made by the defendants themselves and also the factum of the previous proceedings, which D-1 initiated and met with his waterloo.20. In the present case the possession of the plaintiff was upheld by the High Court on two main reasons. Firstly, the defendant of the suit, Subramanian had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property against Ghani Sahib who was manager of the property which suit was dismissed and recovery of possession having been rejected, defendant cannot even make a plea to be in possession and secondly defendant in his cross-examination himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction. The High Court in paragraph 13 of its judgment has extracted the relevant excerpts from the statement of DW1s deposition during cross- examination. In paragraph 13 of the judgment after quoting from deposition of DW1, the High Court held:13.....A bare perusal of those excerpts would clearly display as to how DW1(D1) went to the extent of half-Heartedly admitting partly the reality) and denied the rest of the truth, without having any responsibility to speak truth. For the purpose of achieving success in the litigative battle, by hook or crook, D-1 went to the extent of pleading before this Court quite antithetical to the Judgments and decrees in O.S.No.524 of 1987 and in A.s. No.297 of 1994 (Exs.A-3, A-5, A-6 and A-7) that the previous suit was not for recovery of possession of the suit property. But, those judgments and decrees would clearly indicate that the earlier suit was filed by D-1 and his three children for declaration and recovery of possession of the entire property including the suit property. In the said previous suit, the first defendant and his legal heirs contended that they derived title from their original porosities Rangarajulu Naidu and obtained the suit property under a power deed and they failed in both the courts. As such, that is much more than sufficient to hold that the defendants are not in possession of the suit- property herein.21. The High Court was also right in its view that it is a common principle of law that even trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain injunction. However, the matter would be different, if the plaintiff himself elaborates in the plaint about title dispute and fails to make a prayer for declaration of title along with injunction relief. The High Court has rightly observed that a bare perusal of the plaint would demonstrate that the plaintiff has not narrated anything about the title dispute obviously because of the fact that in the previous litigation, DW1 failed to obtain any relief. The High court has rightly observed that the principle that plaintiff cannot seek for a bare permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration is not applicable to the facts of the present case.24. Learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to judgment of this Court in Ajendra Prasadji Narendra Prasadji Pandey vs. Swami K. Narayandasji and others, (2005)10 SCC 11 , in which case this Court elaborated the cumulative factor for granting a temporary injunction which case is clearly distinguishable and has no application in the present case. Next judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant is in Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through Legal Representatives and another vs. Shivnath and others, (2019) 6 SCC 82.  In the above case in the suit for declaration of title and possession this Court reiterated the principle that suit for declaration of title and possession the plaintiffs will succeed on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether defendants proved their case or not. In paragraph 44 and 45 following was laid down:44. In the suit for declaration for title and possession, the Plaintiffs-Respondents could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the Defendants-Appellants. The burden is on the Plaintiffs-Respondents to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The Plaintiffs-Respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta-lease which the Plaintiffs-Respondents are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence. As noted above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be not genuine. In any event, revenue entries for few Khataunis are not proof of title; but are mere statements for revenue purpose. They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title.45. Observing that in a suit for declaration of title, the Plaintiffs- Respondents are to succeed only on the strength of their own title irrespective of whether the Defendants-Appellants have proved their case or not, in Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Limited, (2014) 2 SCC 269 , it was held as underLSCC p.275, para 15)15. It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff.25. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by this Court in the above cases. But coming to the facts in the present case the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction. As noted above, the High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction was maintainable without entering into the title of the plaintiff in facts of the present case specially in view of the previous litigation which was initiated at the instance of defendant No.1 where he lost the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the same property. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants that evidence filed by the defendant were not looked into is not correct. The trial court as well as the High Court has looked into not only the oral evidence but the exhibits which were filed on behalf of the defendant which is clear from the discussion made by the High Court in paragraphs 13 and 16.26. We do not find any error in the view of the High Court that it was not necessary to enter into the validity of Exhibits A-1 and A-2 and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff deserved to be decreed on the basis of admitted and established possession of the plaintiff. We, thus, do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court allowing the second appeal filed by the plaintiff by setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring that of trial court.