A possessory injunction may stand on proved possession despite denial of an incidental mortgagee-status declaration.

The plaintiff claimed possession of the suit property as a mortgagee under a registered mortgage deed and sought a declaration of that status and a perpetual injunction. Defendant No. 1 claimed ownership and possession under a registered sale deed dated 13 May 1963.

The Trial Court found the plaintiff in possession and granted an injunction. The First Appellate Court rejected the declaratory relief, holding it barred by limitation, but affirmed the injunction.

The defendants appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court, having denied the declaration that the plaintiff was a mortgagee in possession, could nevertheless rely on the mortgage deed in finding that he had established possession.

2. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in overlooking the registered sale deed relied on by the appellant, which allegedly evidenced her possession.

The appeal was considered under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confines a second appeal to substantial questions of law.

The Court treated the nature of the relief as material: a declaration that a plaintiff is a mortgagee in possession may describe the source and character of possession without constituting a claim to title, particularly where the substantive relief is an injunction based on possession.

The Court also considered the suit’s valuation and court fee under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, as indicating that the suit was framed principally as one for injunction based on possession.

No precedent was relied upon as the basis of the decision.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s prayer sought recognition of his status as a mortgagee in possession, not a declaration of title; that declaration was ancillary to the injunction claim.

On possession, the Court assessed the evidence cumulatively: the sale deed relied on by Defendant No. 1 did not record delivery of possession to her; the earlier mortgagee, PW.2, testified that the plaintiff paid the mortgage amount and entered possession; and PW.4’s evidence corroborated that account.

The plaintiff’s possession was therefore supported by evidence beyond the revenue entries. The concurrent finding of possession was not displaced, and the sale deed did not establish that Defendant No. 1 had been put in possession.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments and decrees insofar as they granted the plaintiff a perpetual injunction; there was no order as to costs.