A bare denial by a neighbor does not cloud clear title or require declaratory relief.

The plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction over an 86 ft × 30 ft property, relying on a registered sale deed dated 22 September 2003, municipal khatha records and tax receipts.

The defendant denied the plaintiff’s title and possession, contending that a declaration was necessary, including because an earlier eviction petition concerning a portion of property had been dismissed.

The Trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant appealed under Section 96 CPC.

1. Whether the plaintiff’s suit for bare injunction was maintainable despite the defendant’s denial of title, or whether the plaintiff was required to seek a declaration of title.

2. Whether the earlier HRC proceedings and the defendant’s reliance on a 1954 release deed established a genuine cloud over the plaintiff’s title or possession in respect of the suit property.

Under Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, a suit for injunction simpliciter may be maintained where the plaintiff’s title is clear and the defendant’s denial, unsupported by a prima facie title document, does not raise a genuine cloud over that title; where a genuine cloud exists, declaratory relief may be necessary.

Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, permits a presumption as to the execution and attestation of a document more than 30 years old, but does not by itself establish the truth of its recitals or title to the disputed property.

The Court also treated municipal revenue records and tax documents as having evidentiary weight under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.

The Court found that the plaintiff had produced a registered sale deed, khatha records, tax receipts and an encumbrance certificate supporting his claimed title and possession.

The HRC proceedings concerned a separate 10 ft × 20 ft portion, not the 86 ft × 30 ft suit property, and therefore did not establish the defendant’s possession of the suit property.

The defendant produced no documentary evidence establishing title or lawful possession over the suit property.

Although the 1954 release deed attracted the limited presumption under Section 90, its recitals and its connection to the suit property were not proved by corroborating documents.

The defendant’s denial therefore did not create a genuine cloud requiring a suit for declaration.

Finding the appeal devoid of merit, it dismissed the Regular First Appeal and left the decree for permanent injunction undisturbed.