A true owner in possession is entitled to protection against dispossession except through due process of law.

The plaintiffs/respondents instituted a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning the suit premises and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with, disturbing, or dispossessing them from the property until disposal of the suit.

The appellants contended that the plaintiffs’ case was based on an alleged surrender of tenancy rights by Bidya Devi Jaiswal, the appellants’ mother and the admitted tenant, in November 2021, but that no document established such surrender or termination of the tenancy.

The appellants relied on delivery challans and other documents to show that Bidya Devi, through her proprietorship concern “Ramnidh Ajodhya Prasad”, continued to remain in possession after the alleged surrender date.

They further argued that Bidya Devi, the alleged tenant, had not initially been impleaded in the suit.

The respondents relied on the last rent receipt, issued in October 2021, and argued that Bidya Devi had surrendered possession thereafter.

The High Court found prima facie material indicating Bidya Devi’s occupation after the alleged date of dispossession, but also noted that the respondents were the admitted owners and were presently in possession of the property.

A Special Officer appointed by a coordinate Bench was holding possession of the property subject to the outcome of the injunction application.

Whether the plaintiffs/respondents, being the admitted owners presently in possession of the suit premises, were entitled to an injunction protecting that possession despite the appellants’ prima facie case based on the tenancy rights of Bidya Devi Jaiswal.

Whether the injunction required modification so that any interference with the respondents’ possession could occur only through due process of law.

Whether possession held by the Special Officer should be handed over to the plaintiffs/respondents after disposal of the injunction application.

The Court applied the interlocutory-injunction principle that lawful possession of property may be protected against interference, particularly where the person in possession is the admitted owner.

It further applied the rule that a party claiming a superior possessory or tenancy right must pursue an appropriate legal proceeding, suit, or counterclaim for recovery of possession, rather than resort to self-help or forcible dispossession.

The Court also recognised that protection against interference is subject to eviction or recovery being pursued through due process of law.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court accepted that the appellants had produced materials raising a prima facie question regarding Bidya Devi’s continued occupation after October/November 2021.

However, the Court distinguished the disputed historical tenancy issue from the present possessory position: the respondents’ ownership and current possession were admitted.

On that basis, their possession could not, at the interlocutory stage, be characterised as unlawful, and they were entitled to protection of possession as true owners.

The appellants’ remedy, if Bidya Devi’s tenancy rights established an entitlement to possession, was to institute an appropriate proceeding for recovery of possession.

The Court therefore upheld the injunction but modified it to expressly preserve the requirement of due process of law.

Since the Special Officer’s possession was only temporary and subject to determination of the injunction application, the Court directed that the property be handed over to the respondents.

The appellants, their men, agents, and associates were restrained from interfering with, disturbing, or dispossessing the respondents from the suit premises, except through due process of law, until disposal of the suit.

The Special Officer was directed, upon service of the order, to hand over possession of the suit property to the respondents at the earliest, preferably within one week.

CAN 1 of 2026 was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.

The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the parties’ rights and contentions in the suit or in any future proceeding initiated by the appellants.