Suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when plaintiff's title is under a cloud.

The plaintiff (Appellant) filed a suit for permanent injunction regarding property in Old Survey No. 2521. He claimed a 3/4th interest (1/2 jenmom right and 1/4th mortgage right) based on a 1975 partition deed (Ex. A.4) and a final decree in O.S.No.398 of 1982.

The defendants (Respondents) contended that the plaintiff’s parents were parties to a redemption suit (O.S.No.853 of 1969) where a redemption decree was passed, and possession of 22.5 cents (Plot B) was delivered to the defendants' predecessors via court execution (E.P.No.97/2001) on 04.10.2001.

The plaintiff had filed an obstruction petition (E.A.No.232/2001) in those execution proceedings, which was dismissed and became final.

Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for injunction.

1. Whether the lower courts misread Exhibit A.4 regarding the appellant's mortgage rights.

2. Whether the courts erred in dismissing the suit given that the mortgage for 1/4th of 90 cents was allegedly never redeemed.

3. Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff’s title is under a cloud.

Where there is a serious cloud on the plaintiff's title, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable and the plaintiff must seek a declaration of title.

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, limiting the High Court’s interference to substantial questions of law and prohibiting the overturning of concurrent findings of fact unless perverse.

Once a mortgage is redeemed via a court decree and possession is delivered through execution, the mortgage right ceases to subsist.

The Court found that Exhibit A.4 (Partition Deed) only allotted 14.75 cents to the plaintiff and contained no mention of the alleged mortgage interest.

The Court determined that the plaintiff’s claim to a 1/4th mortgage right was extinguished by the redemption decree in O.S.No.853 of 1969, to which the plaintiff’s parents were parties.

Crucially, the plaintiff’s attempt to obstruct the delivery of possession in E.A.No.232 of 2001 failed, and that dismissal became final, establishing that the defendants' predecessors were put in legal possession.

The Court reasoned that since the defendants vigorously disputed the plaintiff's title and the plaintiff claimed an extent (19.5 cents) exceeding his deeded allotment (14.75 cents), a "serious cloud" existed on the title. Consequently, the plaintiff's failure to seek a declaration of title was fatal to the suit.

The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a correct appreciation of evidence, showing the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property (Plot B) on the date of the suit. A suit for bare injunction cannot be maintained when title is disputed and prior execution proceedings have recorded a valid delivery of possession to the defendants.