A bare injunction suit is not maintainable when title is clouded and possession is unproved.

The plaintiff claimed title to and possession of Site No. 183 under registered conveyances dated 19 November 2007, 24 December 2004 and 6 December 2003, and sought a permanent injunction after the defendant allegedly obstructed construction of a compound wall.

The defendant denied the plaintiff’s title and possession, asserting ownership and possession of Survey No. 23/1, where it operated its college.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit; the plaintiff appealed.

Whether the plaintiff proved lawful possession and the identity and location of Site No. 183 sufficient to obtain a permanent injunction.

Whether the plaintiff’s claim, in light of the disputed title and alleged defects in the chain of conveyances, could be pursued through a suit for bare injunction.

In a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving lawful possession on the date of suit and interference by the defendant.

For a vacant site, possession may follow legal title; where title is under a cloud and the plaintiff cannot establish clear title, a bare-injunction suit is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vyalikaval House Building Co-operative Society v. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 3011/1995, which, as described in the judgment, quashed the acquisition proceedings and directed restoration of possession to the original landowners.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s foundational conveyance from the Society was executed after the Supreme Court’s direction to restore possession, and therefore the Society had no subsisting authority to convey the property.

The plaintiff also failed to produce the vendor’s General Power of Attorney authorising the 2007 conveyance.

The title deeds did not identify the survey number from which Site No. 183 was formed, and the plaintiff’s evidence did not establish the site’s location; by contrast, the defendant’s layout plan placed the claimed property substantially within Survey No. 23/1, over which it produced title deeds and evidence of possession.

The plaintiff therefore failed to establish the property’s identity, a clear title, or lawful possession warranting an injunction.

The Regular First Appeal was dismissed.