Lessor retains constructive possession and maintains locus standi for permanent injunction despite leasing property to tenant.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a decree of permanent injunction can be granted on a property which was leased out and over which the plaintiff has no actual or physical possession?

The court held

The High Court answered both substantial questions of law in favor of the Plaintiff/Respondent. It held that a decree of permanent injunction can be granted to a lessor who retains constructive possession through a tenant

It also directed

It further held that the lower appellate court did not err in its appreciation of the revenue records

The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction was affirmed

01Facts

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) purchased land in Khasra Nos. 490 and 497, Village Ganeshpur, through sale deeds in 2000 and 2003

¶ 2

The Plaintiff subsequently leased the property to Defendant No. 3 for 30 years to operate a petrol retail outlet

¶ 3

In 2003, officials from Nagar Palika Parishad (Defendants 1 and 2/Appellants) allegedly interfered with the possession, claiming the property actually fell within Khasra No. 495/2, which was owned by the Nagar Palika

¶ 5-7

The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for a permanent injunction, holding that by executing a 30-year lease, the Plaintiff lost actual physical possession and her title had extinguished under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act

¶ 10-11

The First Appellate Court reversed this, decreeing the suit in favor of the Plaintiff after finding that the property was indeed in Khasra No. 490 and that a lessor retains constructive possession

¶ 12-13

02Issues

i.1. Whether a decree of permanent injunction can be granted on a property which was leased out and over which the plaintiff has no actual or physical possession?

¶ 14 / p. 9

ii.2. Whether the lower court has erred in appreciating the revenue records, which were placed before it in evidence?

¶ 14 / p. 9

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act regarding permanent injunctions, interpreted through the principle of constructive possession

¶ 17-21

It relied heavily on the precedent set in Sadashiv Shyama Sawant v. Anita Anant Sawant (2010) 3 SCC 385, which establishes that a landlord/lessor does not lose legal possession by letting out a property to a tenant; the tenant’s physical possession is considered the landlord's constructive possession for the purposes of maintaining legal remedies against third-party trespassers

¶ 22-23

The court also applied evidentiary rules regarding revenue records, specifically Sajra (village maps) and Khatauni (records of rights), to determine property boundaries

¶ 27-28

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Specific Relief Act, 1963 Section 38 Section 6

04Reasoning

Regarding the first issue, the Court rejected the Appellants' argument that actual physical possession is a prerequisite for an injunction under Section 38. Applying Sadashiv Shyama Sawant, the Court reasoned that while the tenant possesses the property physically, the lessor retains legal and constructive possession

¶ 22

Consequently, a landlord maintains the right to protect the property from external interference as if they were in physical occupation

¶ 23

On the second issue, the Court found that the First Appellate Court correctly scrutinized the Sajra and Survey Commission Report

¶ 27

The Court noted that the Appellants failed to prove their claim that the land fell under Khasra No. 495/2, whereas the Plaintiff’s evidence consistently placed the land within Khasra No. 490

¶ 28

The Court affirmed that once the Appellants' claim to the land was disproved and the boundary identified via the Sajra, the logical conclusion of the First Appellate Court regarding property location was sound

¶ 27-29