A plaintiff out of possession must seek declaration and recovery, not a bare injunction.

The plaintiff claimed that the suit properties belonged to Kakkottidathil Tharawad and that, as its Karanavan, he was entitled to manage them.

He alleged that Narayanan Nambiar had been entrusted with their care but had no right to transfer them.

The defendant claimed through a series of transfers originating with Narayanan Nambiar’s daughter and asserted possession of the ‘B’ schedule property.

The plaintiff sued for permanent injunction; the trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed that decision and decreed it.

The defendant appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the first appellate court was right to find that the plaintiff had possession and title to the suit property without proper documentary or oral evidence

2. Whether the first appellate court could decree a bare injunction suit without relief of declaration and recovery of possession, particularly where a prior suit for recovery concerning the property was pending

The Court considered the appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the substantial questions of law framed at admission.

It applied the principle that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must establish possession where possession is in issue; where the plaintiff is out of possession and the defendant asserts title, a bare injunction suit is insufficient and appropriate declaratory and possession reliefs must be sought.

No precedent or other statutory provision was cited in the judgment.

The Court found no evidence establishing that the plaintiff was in possession when the suit was filed.

The evidence instead indicated that Narayanan Nambiar had possessed the property and that the defendant claimed possession of the ‘B’ schedule property through subsequent transfers.

Because the plaintiff knew of the defendant’s purchase but sought neither declaration nor recovery of possession, the injunction suit was inadequate on the facts.

The first appellate court had relied on the defendant’s admission that the property originally belonged to the Tharawad without properly addressing possession or the missing reliefs.

The Court therefore did not determine the parties’ competing title claims.

It allowed the second appeal, set aside the first appellate court’s decree, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.