Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Possession or Declaration of Title

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that when a plaintiff is not in possession of the property, and the title itself is under dispute, a decree for injunction simpliciter cannot be granted without seeking declaration of ownership or recovery of possession. 

The Supreme Court pronounced this in the case of S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal (2025). 

What was the Background of S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal Case? 

• The case arose out of a family dispute regarding agricultural land measuring 1.74½ acres, originally owned by Rangaswamy Naidu, the father of the parties. 
• The respondent-plaintiff D. Rajammal filed a suit for injunction against her brother Munuswamy, seeking to restrain him from alienating or interfering with her possession of half the property (0.87¼ acres), based on a Will dated 30.09.1985 executed by their father. 
• Rajammal claimed that her father had bequeathed the land equally to her and her brother Govindarajan. The defendant, however, asserted that the property was ancestral, and that there had been a division of property in 1983, during their father’s lifetime, giving him rights and possession. 
• The Trial Court held that the Will was valid and granted injunctions in favour of the plaintiff. 
• The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, finding that the testator had no authority to will away ancestral property. 
• The High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court’s decree. 
• Aggrieved, the legal heirs of the defendant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The Supreme Court examined the nature of the suit and found that the plaintiff had admitted that the defendant was in possession of the property. 

The Court observed that: 

• The plaintiff, while relying on the Will, did not seek a declaration of title or recovery of possession, despite admitting that she was not in physical possession. 
• An injunction simpliciter cannot be granted when title is disputed and possession is not with the plaintiff. 
• The principle that “possession follows title” applies only when ownership is undisputed; here, the ownership itself was under a cloud. 
• The Court further observed that though the Will was proved, the right of the father to bequeath the property remained uncertain, as the property appeared ancestral in character. 

The Court, therefore, held that injunction against interference with possession could not be granted. However, injunction against alienation was upheld to maintain status quo, since neither party’s title was conclusively established. 

What is a Suit of Injunction? 

• Injunction is a remedy which is asked for from the Court prevent breach of any obligation that exists in favor of a person.  
• According to the duration of injunction there are two types of injunctions:  
  • Permanent Injunction:  
    • A permanent injunction is a court order that restrains a party from engaging in certain conduct or compels them to perform specific acts.  
    • It is considered a final and permanent remedy, distinct from preliminary injunctions, which are issued on a temporary basis during the pendency of a legal proceeding.  
    • Permanent or Perpetual injunction is granted under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA).  
    • Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of SRA states that a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favor, whether expressly or by implication. 
  • Temporary Injunction:   
    • Order XXXIX of the CPC specifically deals with temporary injunctions.    
    • It outlines the conditions under which a court may grant an injunction to restrain a party from doing a particular act or to compel a party to do a specific act.    
    • The key considerations include:   
      • The likelihood of success on the merits of the case.   
      • The possibility of irreparable harm to the applicant.   
      • The balance of convenience between the parties.