Suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking recovery of possession if the plaintiff is dispossessed.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Respondent No. 1, claiming to be the owner and in peaceful possession of 0.41 hectares of land in Village Achanakpur.

He claimed title through a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2008 executed by one Gangaram Patel.

Respondent No. 1 (defendant) contested the suit, asserting that the land was joint family property and that Gangaram (her son) had no exclusive right to sell the entire holding.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 01.02.2010, finding the plaintiff was not in possession and had failed to seek recovery of possession.

This was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 12.02.2016, which noted that the plaintiff’s mutation had already been set aside by the SDO in 2009.

1. Whether a suit for a mere permanent injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff is found to be out of possession and fails to seek the consequential relief of recovery of possession?

2. Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding possession and title give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the CPC?

The Court applied the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars a declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Regarding the scope of second appeals, the Court relied on Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that interference is restricted to "substantial questions of law".

The Court cited State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) to clarify that concurrent findings of fact are binding unless proven perverse or based on no evidence.

Furthermore, it relied on the principles in Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth (2026), established by the Supreme Court, stating that even erroneous findings of fact do not justify interference under Section 100 CPC in the absence of a clear error of law.

The Court observed that the plaintiff essentially admitted during cross-examination that the defendant had been in possession, sowing and harvesting crops for four months prior to the suit.

Because the plaintiff was not in physical possession at the time of filing, a mere suit for permanent injunction was legally untenable without seeking recovery of possession.

Regarding title, the Court noted that the vendor, Gangaram, could only transfer his own share as the property remained joint with his mother (Defendant No. 1), and the plaintiff's mutation entries had already been neutralized by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The High Court reasoned that since both lower courts had concurrently evaluated the evidence to find the plaintiff lacked exclusive title and possession, these were pure findings of fact.

The Appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or misreading of evidence that would elevate these factual disputes to a substantial question of law.

It further held that concurrent findings of fact, in the absence of perversity, do not constitute a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. All reliefs were denied.