Suit for Possession is not Maintainable without Seeking Declaration of Title when Title is in Cloud.

The Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed a civil suit for vacant possession, damages, and permanent injunction against the Respondent (Defendant) regarding land in Khasra Nos. 356/1 and 357/1 (0.80 acres) in Raipur.

The Plaintiffs claimed title via a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1994, alleging the Defendant encroached on 4 decimals of land with a hutment.

Revenue proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code were initiated, but the High Court ultimately ruled in WP(227) No. 257 of 2013 that the Plaintiffs must pursue a civil remedy for possession.

The Defendant filed a counter-claim, asserting he was only entitled to alienate 65 decimals of ancestral property and remained in possession of 15 decimals (including the hutment) for over 40 years.

The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ suit and partly allowed the Defendant’s counter-claim, granting an injunction for the 4 decimals containing the house.

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for vacant possession without seeking a formal declaration of title when the Defendant has specifically challenged the Plaintiffs' title over the encroached portion.

2. Whether the Appellants can produce the original sale deed as additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC without sufficient cause.

The Court applied the principle from Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, which mandates that where a "cloud" is raised over a plaintiff's title, a suit for declaration and possession (rather than mere possession or injunction) is the necessary remedy.

Regarding mutation, the court relied on Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, holding that mutation entries are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer title.

For additional evidence, it applied Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, stating that Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is an exception to be used sparingly and cannot be invoked to fill a party's lacuna caused by negligence.

The Court observed that while the Plaintiffs claimed title to 80 decimals, the Defendant specifically denied this, asserting he only sold 65 decimals and retained title/possession of the remainder.

This challenge created a "cloud" on the Plaintiffs' title, yet they failed to seek a declaration of title, which is fatal to a suit for possession under the Anathula Sudhakar doctrine.

Furthermore, the court found that the Plaintiffs were grossly negligent in failing to produce the original sale deed during the trial.

The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was rejected because the Plaintiffs offered no substantial reason for the omission, and the court refused to allow the appellate process to be used to remedy such remissness.

Evidence also showed the Defendant had been in continuous possession of the hutment for decades, a fact admitted by the Plaintiffs’ own witness.

The Court held that a decree for possession cannot be passed in favor of a plaintiff whose title is in cloud unless a declaration of title is sought and proved.

The Plaintiffs’ failure to produce the title deed at trial and the subsequent rejection of their application for additional evidence meant they failed to establish the right to evict the Defendant from the 4 decimals of land occupied by his house.

The Defendant’s counter-claim for permanent injunction over the 4-decimal portion was affirmed.