A mere title dispute does not require declaratory relief absent a genuine cloud over title.

The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction over six cents in Re-Survey No. 3/12, claiming ownership and possession.

The first defendant disputed the property’s identity and asserted a right to a pathway under a 2000 sale deed; the second defendant had constructed a compound wall on the eastern side.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal.

In second appeal, the High Court considered the parties’ documents and the Advocate Commissioner’s report, which recorded the plaintiff’s property as 5.934 cents on measurement, the second defendant’s property as 11.786 cents against a documentary extent of 10.500 cents, and a pathway of 500 square links under the first defendant’s document.

1. Whether the first appellate court could grant an injunction without a prayer for declaration of title when the defendant disputed title.

2. Whether the first appellate court decided the injunction suit without properly considering possession.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies on a substantial question of law; the High Court does not ordinarily interfere with factual findings merely because another view is possible.

Section 103 CPC permits the High Court, subject to its statutory requirements, to determine a necessary issue of fact when the evidence on record is sufficient.

In an injunction suit, possession is material, and a plaintiff need not invariably seek a declaration merely because title is disputed; declaratory relief is required where the circumstances disclose a genuine cloud over title that calls for adjudication.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court treated the central dispute as one of identifying the properties and locating the pathway, rather than as a title dispute necessarily requiring declaratory relief.

The Commissioner’s measurements, physical observations, and plan were considered alongside the deeds, revenue records, and oral evidence.

The recorded excess in the second defendant’s measured extent did not by itself prove that the excess was the claimed pathway, while the survey stone did not conclusively establish the first defendant’s right.

The first defendant’s deed referred to 500 square links, but the asserted pathway of 3 × 125 links was not specifically reflected in it.

The Court also found that the plaintiff’s deed, revenue records, house-tax receipts, and the house identified on the property supported consideration of his possession.

On the full record, the first appellate court’s conclusion was not perverse or unsupported by evidence.

It held that the absence of a declaration prayer did not, on these facts, require reversal, and that the evidence had been considered with reference to possession.

The second appeal was dismissed, the first appellate court’s judgment and decree granting a permanent injunction were confirmed, and there was no order as to costs.