Consequential injunction cannot stand where the plaintiff fails to establish title and lawful possession.

The plaintiff, Anwarkhan, claimed that a family partition and a written family settlement dated 29 April 1997 gave him ownership of land in Survey No. 140/2F, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas.

Defendant No. 1, Hasan Khan, contended that the settlement had been cancelled by an agreement dated 14 May 2003, which recorded that possession was handed over to him.

The Trial Court dismissed the claim for declaration of title but granted a permanent injunction, finding the plaintiff in possession; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decree.

Defendant No. 1 appealed under Section 100 CPC.

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies for consideration of a substantial question of law.

Relying on Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji v. Maniben Jagmalbhai and Albert Rodrigues v. Valerian Rodrigues, the Court stated that an injunction sought as consequential relief must be assessed in the circumstances of the case; where the plaintiff is not entitled to the principal relief, the consequential injunction cannot be granted.

An injunction against even the true owner may be available where the claimant is in lawful possession and legally entitled to remain in possession except through due process of law.

The plaintiff’s asserted title rested on Exhibit D1, the unregistered family settlement, which the Trial Court treated as inadmissible; the Court noted that the plaintiff therefore could not establish ownership through that document.

Further, Exhibit D2 disclosed that defendant No. 1 had possession of the suit land, undermining the finding that the plaintiff was in possession.

In those circumstances, the plaintiff had not established a basis for the injunction, and the courts below erred in granting that relief after dismissing the declaration claim.

It set aside the judgments and decrees of both courts below, dismissed the suit, and made no order as to costs.