Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 133
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8451 OF 2011
KANTA AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SOMA DEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LR. AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. The Appeal arises from the judgment dated 24.07.2010 in RSA No. 221
of 1998 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
2. Sham Sunder (Since Deceased) filed Case No. 496 of 1990 before the
st
Court of Sub Judge 1 Class, Una. The Civil Appeal is prosecuted by the
plaintiff's LRs. CS No. 496 of 1990 was at the first instance filed for perpetual
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the plaintiff in any manner from agricultural land measuring 8
Kanals – 05 Marlas in Khewat No. 194, Khatuni No. 1029, Khasra Nos. 4647,
4701, 4702 4742 situated in Village Lohara, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The
plaintiff amended the plaint to include the prayer for recovery of possession
from the defendant.
3. The plaintiff's case is that he is the owner, and the co-owner is in
exclusive Hisadari possession of the plaintiff. The defendants are strangers
and have no right, title, or interest in the suit schedule. The cause of action
for filing the suit was the threatened interference of defendants, who are
1
powerful, with plaintiff’s possession, and refusing to admit the plaintiff’s claim
to the suit schedule. The first defendant resisted the suit claim in all fours,
and the principal averment which has bearing for the disposal of the Civil
Appeal is that the first defendant is in possession of the suit schedule, and
the first defendant traces her entitlement through her husband, Late Roshan
st
Lal. According to the 1 Defendant, Roshan Lal died about 36 years before
st
the filing of the Written Statement, and the 1 defendant’s father-in-law, as
Karta of the family of the Lakhu, has granted the right of enjoyment of the
suit schedule in lieu of maintenance. The right of maintenance has ripened
into an absolute right.
4. The plaintiff is not in possession, and the prayer for recovery of
possession is also unavailable. The Trial Court framed two issues:
“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of injunction?
Whether the suit land was Joint Hindu family property and it
was given to Soma Devi for maintenance and she became its
full owner in 1956”
5. Through the judgment dated 20.06.1992, the Trial Court dismissed the
suit. The plaintiff filed an appeal numbered as Civil Appeal No. 124/92,
213/94/92 before the Additional District Judge, Una. The First Appellate
Court, by judgment and decree dated 08.04.1998, allowed the appeal of the
plaintiff. The defendant filed RSA No. 221 of 1998 before the High Court, and
through the impugned judgment, the Second Appeal was allowed.
6. Hence, the Civil Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.
7. The findings of the High Court are summarised hereunder:
2
7.1 The High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred in concluding
that the suit land was not given to Soma Devi for maintenance. The High
Court concluded that her father-in-law had granted the land in lieu of
maintenance following the death of her husband. The High Court held that
the right to maintenance is a pre-existing right under Shastric Hindu Law.
Relying on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the High Court
held that Soma Devi’s limited interest in the property acquired in lieu of
maintenance automatically ripened into absolute ownership. The High Court
emphasised that Section 14(1) is of wide amplitude and covers every kind of
acquisition of property by a female Hindu, regardless of whether it was
possessed before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act.
The High Court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim of succession based on a Will
executed by his grandfather, holding that the plea regarding the Will was not
taken in the original plaint but was introduced for the first time in the
replication.
8. Mr. Mohit D Ram contends that the High Court committed an illegality
th
by not recognising the right of the plaintiff to a 1/6 share in the plaint
schedule. The plaintiff’s name is entered in the revenue record, and the
possession of the first defendant is Hisadari possession of the plaintiff. The
alternative prayer for recovery of possession should have been entertained
inasmuch as the first defendant failed to establish her plea that the suit
schedule was put in her possession towards maintenance. Since the
relationship between the parties is not in dispute, the recovery of possession
should have been decreed.
3
9. Mr. Govind Goel appearing for the first defendant argues that the
plaintiff having failed to prove possession has also failed to plead and prove,
as to how the claim for recovery of possession in a suit filed in 1990 is
maintainable. The Trial Court and the High Court have considered the crucial
aspect of the matter and dismissed the suit. The prayers cannot be considered
as the plaintiff failed to prove possession and did not establish when he lost
possession.
10. We have taken note of the limited submissions and perused the record.
11. The suit is one for perpetual injunction, alternatively for recovery of
possession. The plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction, along with
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, must also prove
the actual possession of the suit schedule on the date of filing of the suit. It
is axiomatic that possession on the date of filing the suit is an essential
requisite for granting perpetual injunction. The findings recorded are that the
plaintiff was not in possession of the suit schedule property. In a suit for
recovery of possession, one of the essential conditions is (i) entitlement, (ii)
manner of entitlement, (iii) specifics on the date and mode of dispossession,
and conversely (iv) what is the nature of possession claimed by the defendant,
and how it is illegal. Admittedly in the case on hand, these pleadings are
completely absent. A few bits and pieces of evidence without pleading cannot
be appreciated. Therefore, the first relief is rightly rejected by reckoning the
plea and proof placed by the plaintiff. To the same effect, Maria Margarida
4
1
Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira , has laid down the requisite
features in pleadings and reads thus:
“ 69. The person averring a right to continue in possession
shall, as far as possible, give a detailed particularised specific
pleading along with documents to support his claim and details
of subsequent conduct which establish his possession.
70. It would be imperative that one who claims possession
must give all such details as enumerated hereunder. They are
only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(a) who is or are the owner or owners of the property;
(b) title of the property;
(c) who is in possession of the title documents;
(d) identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;
(e) the date of entry into possession;
(f) how he came into possession—whether he purchased the
property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other
method;
(g) in case he purchased the property, what is the
consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent,
licence fee or lease amount;
(h) If taken on rent, licence fee or lease—then insist on rent
deed, licence deed or lease deed;
(i) who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise
living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends
or servants, etc.;
(j) subsequent conduct i.e. any event which might have
extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift
therein; and
1
(2012) 5 SCC 370.
5
(k) basis of his claim that not to deliver possession but continue
in possession.
xxx
75. In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue
in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him
to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what
date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what
manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the
years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what
basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the
pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute
sufficient claim of defence.
xxx
77. The court must ensure that pleadings of a case must
contain sufficient particulars. Insistence on details reduces the
ability to put forward a non-existent or false claim or defence.
In dealing with a civil case, pleadings, title documents and
relevant records play a vital role and that would ordinarily
decide the fate of the case.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Adverting to the alternative relief of recovery of possession, after
perusing the plaint, we record that the plaint is bereft of the required details
on the alleged date of dispossession and the basis on which recovery of
possession is prayed for. In the absence of material pleadings and evidence,
the suit of plaintiff is rightly dismissed.
13. After perusing the judgment of the first appellate court, we observe that
st
the first appellate court has fastened the burden on the 1 defendant and has
st
also drawn a few adverse inferences on the case pleaded by the 1 defendant.
6
Without a detailed narrative of the position in law in this behalf, we observe
that the approach of the first appellate court is erroneous and failed to
appreciate the nature of prayers and frame of suit.
14. For the above reasons, the Civil Appeal is dismissed. No order as to
costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………..……….…………………J.
[PANKAJ MITHAL]
………..…………………………J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
New Delhi;
February 06, 2026.
7