Unregistered Gift Documents and Mere Possession Without Proof Fail to Sustain Injunction Relief Against Title Cloud

The Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Respondents (her deceased husband’s brothers) regarding a 50 sq. yard property in Village Bijwasan

She claimed ownership through an unregistered GPA, Gift Deed, and Will dated 20.08.1986 executed by her father-in-law, Bhartu Singh

She alleged the Respondents demolished a wall and threatened dispossession in October 2018

The Respondents contested, asserting the property fell to their share in a family settlement and that the Plaintiff’s documents were forged

The Trial Court (Civil Judge) dismissed the suit on 30.11.2022, and the First Appellate Court (ADJ) upheld the dismissal on 09.12.2025

The Appellant then approached the High Court in a Second Regular Appeal under Section 100 CPC

1. Whether the Plaintiff established lawful possession and title over the suit property sufficient to merit a permanent injunction?

2. Whether an injunction can be granted when a cloud is cast on the title without seeking a relief of declaration?

3. Whether the suit property’s wall was demolished by the defendants to warrant a mandatory injunction?

The Court applied Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates the registration of gift deeds for immovable property

It relied on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the requirement to prove the execution of a Will

It followed the precedent established in Anathula Sudhakar v. Buchi Reddy (2008), which stipulates that where a title is under a cloud or in dispute, a mere suit for injunction is not maintainable unless the plaintiff also seeks a formal Declaration of title

The Court also noted the limitations of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which restricts Second Appeals to "substantial questions of law" and precludes re-appreciation of factual findings

The High Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the Appellant failed to prove either title or possession. The Gift Deed was legally ineffective as it was unregistered, violating Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act

The Will was discarded as it was not proved per Section 68 of the Evidence Act

Applying Anathula Sudhakar, the Court held that since the Respondents raised a serious dispute regarding ownership, the Appellant could not seek an injunction without a prayer for Declaration

Regarding possession, the Court noted the Appellant relied on a 26-year-old electricity bill and an admitted incorrect site plan, which failed to establish current possession

Since possession was not proved, the claims for mandatory injunction regarding the demolished wall were dismissed as consequential failures

The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts—specifically that the Plaintiff lacked title documents and failed to prove possession—cannot be interfered with in a Second Appeal

The decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction was upheld

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly