A bare-injunction plaintiff need not prove title when settled possession is established against non-owners.

In brief

The question

Whether the suit property was described with sufficient particularity to satisfy Order VII Rule 3 CPC.

The court held

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and dismissed the regular second appeal.

It also directed

The first appellate court’s decree granting a permanent injunction in respect of the 722 sq. ft. house was left undisturbed; pending applications were disposed of as not surviving for consideration.

01Facts

Smt. Zulekha Bi sued for a permanent injunction concerning a house and open space bearing TPC No. 839 in Alnavar.

¶ 3–8

She claimed long-standing possession, stating that the property belonged to the Town Panchayat and that she occupied it with permission.

¶ 3–8

The defendants disputed her rights and alleged that she had put up a shed adjoining Madani Masjid’s compound wall; they asserted that the property was wakf property.

¶ 3–8

After Zulekha Bi died, her legal representatives continued the suit.

¶ 3–8

The trial court dismissed it, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal and granted an injunction limited to the 722 sq. ft. house.

¶ 3–8

Defendant No. 2 appealed under Section 100 CPC.

¶ 3–8

The High Court noted that the suit also concerned the remaining open space, but that issue was being considered in a separate appeal.

¶ 10

02Issues

i.Whether the suit property was described with sufficient particularity to satisfy Order VII Rule 3 CPC.

¶ 9–11

ii.Whether the first appellate court erred in granting an injunction despite the plaintiff’s failure to establish title, and whether its findings on possession and interference warranted interference in a second appeal.

¶ 12–15

iii.Whether the first appellate court erred in rejecting the defendants’ application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional evidence.

¶ 16

iv.Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

¶ 16

03Law Applied

Order VII Rule 3 CPC requires the plaint to describe immovable property sufficiently to identify it; the High Court held that identification by property number and extent may suffice in the circumstances of this case.

¶ 11

In a suit for bare permanent injunction, the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff established possession and interference; proof of title is not essential where the plaintiff does not seek relief against the true owner or the person who permitted possession.

¶ 15

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC governs the admission of additional evidence in appeal, and the High Court upheld rejection of the proposed document as irrelevant to possession at the time of the 2013 suit.

¶ 16

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only where a substantial question of law arises; the judgment cited no precedent.

¶ 16

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The suit property was identifiable by its TPC number and stated extent, so the objection that its description was inadequate failed.

¶ 11

The first appellate court relied on the assessment extract, tax receipts and property extract to find the plaintiffs in settled possession; the defendants’ own case that a shed stood beside the mosque’s compound wall also supported the conclusion that the disputed property was outside that wall and occupied by the plaintiffs.

¶ 13–14

Because the suit sought only an injunction and was not directed against the true owner or the person who had permitted possession, the absence of proof of title did not defeat the claim.

¶ 15

The proposed 2023 property extract did not establish possession as of the 2013 suit and was therefore not relevant additional evidence.

¶ 16

The High Court found no error warranting second-appellate intervention.

¶ 16