Grant Or Refusal Of An Injunction

Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs. (21.03.2012 - SC) : MANU/SC/0225/2012
Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness.

Ordinarily, three main principles govern the grant or refusal of injunction.

1. prima facie case;
2. balance of convenience; and
3. irreparable injury, which guide the Court in this regard.

When Title Of The Property Is Established

Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. (25.03.2008 - SC) : MANU/SC/7376/2008
Ratio Decidendi: If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as against the person who is not able to establish title.

Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter

Injunction When Possession Is Established

Annamma vs. Pattamma (10.12.1990 - KARHC) : MANU/KA/0317/1990
He who comes to the Court with a plea that his rights shall be protected by granting injunction, such a person shall be in actual and lawful possession and enjoyment must come to the Court well in time.

It is true that rights of the parties can be ascertained only after regular evidence is led in If plaintiffs have made out an arguable case, it is just and proper to see that the status quo between the parties should be maintained. As otherwise, in the event plaintiffs succeed, they will be compelled once again to try to remove the encumbrance created or the decree obtained will be frustrated while executing.

When Injunction Is Sought U/S 38 Of Specific Relief Act

Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande vs. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta and Ors. (06.02.2019 - SC) : MANU/SC/0148/2019
In a suit filed Under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property. The burden of proof lies upon the first Respondent-Plaintiff to prove that he was in actual and physical possession of the property on the date of suit.

When There Is Sufficient Documentary Evidence To Prove Ownership

Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through L. Rs. (21.03.2012 - SC) : MANU/SC/0225/2012
Possession is important when there are no title documents and other relevant records before the Court, but, once the documents and records of title come before the Court, it is the title which has to be looked at first and due weightage be given to it. Possession cannot be considered in vacuum.

There is a presumption that possession of a person, other than the owner, if at all it is to be called possession, is permissive on behalf of the title-holder. Further, possession of the past is one thing, and the right to remain or continue in future is another thing. It is the latter which is usually more in controversy than the former, and it is the latter which has seen much abuse and misuse before the Courts.

A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession.

Apart from these pleadings, the Court must insist on documentary proof in support of the pleadings. All those documents would be relevant which come into existence after the transfer of title or possession or the encumbrance as is claimed. While dealing with the civil suits, at the threshold, the Court must carefully and critically examine pleadings and documents.

Is Possession By Licensee Legal Possession?

Thomas Cook (India) Limited vs. Hotel Imperial and Ors. (09.01.2006 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/0298/2006
nature of occupancy is clearly permissive. In fact it does not amount to possession at all. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in terms of the compromise decree was that of Licensor and licensee and not Lesser and Lessee. The plaintiff had use of the two rooms under a license. A license does not create any interest in the property. It merely permits another person to make use of the property. There is no parting with possession as the legal possession continues with the owner (licensor).

When Possession Is Gratuitous In Nature

Veena Devi and Ors. vs. Praveen Kumar Gupta and Ors. (22.03.2021 - DELHC)
The plaintiffs are the sons of the defendants as such they were using the suit property under the permission of the defendants. Further, their possession of the suit property is gratuitous in nature. Once that permission to use and occupy the suit property is revoked, plaintiffs are bound to surrender the suit property to the defendants.