In the recent case of A. Subramanian v. R. Pannerselvam, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction constricting the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the said property.
The Trial Court accepted the plea and decreed the suit. When the defendant appealed to the High Court against the same, the High Court upheld the judgment held by the Trial Court.
In the Apex Court, Defendant contended that the plaintiff could not have sought a bare permanent injunction without seeking prayer for declaration.
Further, the defendant contended that the plaintiff cannot get the decree in his favor because of the fact that the defendants failed to prove their title and possession.
The Court examined the pleadings and observed that the defendant had earlier filed a suit for recovery of possession and declaration for the same property and that, it was dismissed as in the cross-examination, the defendant himself admitted that the plaintiff after purchase had demolished the construction.
Further, the court observed that even a trespasser, who is in established possession of the property could obtain an injunction, and the principle that the plaintiff cannot seek for a permanent injunction without seeking prayer for declaration will not apply when the plaintiff’s possession over the property is admitted and established.
Therefore, the Supreme Court does not find any wrong in the view of the High Court, and the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is decreed.
Leave a Reply