Supreme Court: Injunction Suit Maintainable Without Declaratory Relief When Plaintiff's Title Isn't Disputed By Defendant

The law is well settled that if the defendants do not dispute

the title of the plaintiffs then the suit should not fail only on

the ground that the matter has been filed only for injunction

simpliciter and no main relief in the form of declaration has been

prayed for. {Para 18}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.159/2025

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.686/2025

(@Diary No.28071/2024)

KRUSHNA CHANDRA BEHERA & ORS. Vs  NARAYAN NAYAK & ORS. 

Dated: 6TH JANUARY, 2025.

Print Page

Madras HC: Revenue records will not confer any title unless supported by valid documents

 It is needless to reiterate again that, revenue records are not documents for title, it will not confer any title, unless supported by valid documents. Likewise documents created fraudulently though registered is non est in eye of law. {Para 46}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

A.S. No. 876 of 2019, C.M.P. Nos. 26727 of 2019 and 13994 of 2020

Decided On: 17.02.2021

Somasundaram Vs. Parameswariammal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. G. Jayachandran, J.

Citation:  MANU/TN/0670/2021,2021(1) LW 912,2021(4) CTC 44.

Print Page

Whether limitation for filing suit for specific performance of contract will be extended if there is cloud on the title of defendant?

Similarly, the justification put forth by the plaintiffs that the defendants did not have a clear title and therefore in view of pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 1208 of 2004 the plaintiffs could not have sought specific performance of the agreement in question also cannot be accepted. As noted above, on the First Part of Article 54 of the Act of 1963 being applied, the limitation would expire by 01.07.2001. Regular Civil Suit No. 1208 of 2004 has been filed in September-2004 much after expiry of the period of three years even from 01.07.2001. Moreover, under Section 9 of the Act of 1963 once the time begins to run, it would continue to run till the completion of the prescribed period and no subsequent disability or inability to institute a suit would stop the same. Hence, when the period of limitation commenced from 02.07.1998, it terminated on the expiry of the period of limitation and the plea that there was a cloud on the title of the defendants or that they were not in a position to convey valid title cannot save the plaintiffs from the operation of the rigors of the period of limitation as prescribed. Hence, the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiffs cannot be accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal Nos. 457 and 458/2015

Decided On: 03.09.2018

Arvind  Vs.  Baba Jasbirsing Kalsi and Ors.

Print Page

Whether suit for permanent injunction is maintainable if defendant is disputing title of plaintiff?

 The issue that fall for our consideration is: “Whether
the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the
defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff?”
11. It is well settled by catena of Judgments of this
Court that in each and every case where the defendant
disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all
those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A
suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant
raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he
raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in
those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare
injunction.
12. In the facts of the case the defendantBoard
by relying
upon the land acquisition proceedings and the possession
certificate could successfully raise cloud over the title of the

plaintiff and in those circumstances plaintiff ought to have
sought for the relief of declaration. The Courts below erred in
entertaining the suit for injunction.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8241 OF 2009

JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD  V  DIDAR SINGH & ANR.

Dated:OCTOBER 09, 2018.
N.V. RAMANA, J.

Print Page

When a party can file suit for injunction without claiming declaration?

Thus it becomes clear that when the plaintiff has a clear title supported by documents and a defendant without any claim on the title merely denies the title of the plaintiff, it would not amount to raising of cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it would not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration and suit for injunction would be sufficient. In the instant case, the evidence and material on record shows that the defendants have no claim of title on the suit plot. In such a situation, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the present case is certainly maintainable and it was correctly decreed by the Courts below.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 379 of 2016

Decided On: 08.03.2018

Laxman Bisan Uke and Ors. Vs. Ashok Ishwar Shinde and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 151

Print Page

When suit for possession is maintainable without claiming declaration?

 In the aforesaid background of facts, we come to the question whether it was
necessary to seek relief or declaration of title. In our opinion, the plaintiff has filed the
suit for possession on the strength for title and not only on the basis of prior possession.
It was not a summary suit for ejectment filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963. Thus, plaintiff could succeed in suit for possession on the strength of the title.
The issue had been framed on the question of title of the plaintiff as well as on the

question of adoption of defendant no.3. On the basis of title claimed in the suit, both the
parties have adduced their evidence in support of their respective cases. The main plea
of defendant no. 3 that she was an adopted daughter of Yashoda has not been found to be
established by the trial Court, the first Appellate Court or by the High Court. Thus, in
our opinion, there was no serious cloud on the title of the plaintiff so as to force him to
seek the relief for declaration of title in the instant case which was in fact based on the
strength of the sale deed executed by Buchamma, who was the sole surviving heir of
Balaiah as such succeeded to the property and had the right to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff.
13. We are fortified in our aforesaid conclusion by a decision in Kurella Naga Druva
Yudaya Bhaskara Rao v. Galla Jani Kamma (2008) 15 SCC 150, wherein this Court has
examined the question of maintainability of suit for possession without prayer for
declaration of title. This Court has referred to its earlier decision in Anathula Sudhakar
v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594, wherein the plaintiff had purchased the suit land
under registered sale deed dated 10.4.1957 and the defendant did not claim the title with
reference to any document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. It
was held by this Court that the said plea did not prima facie put any cloud over the
plaintiff’s title calling him to file suit for declaration of title. Unless there is serious
cloud over the title of the plaintiff there is no need to file suit for declaration of title. The

suit for possession was maintainable. This Court laid down as follows:
“16. The plaintiff had purchased the suit land under registered sale
deed dated 10.4.1957. Defendant did not claim title with reference to any
document but claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession. A mere
claim by the defendant that he had perfected his title by adverse possession,
does not mean that a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and that the
plaintiff who is the owner, should file a suit for declaration of title. Unless
the defendant raises a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff, there is no
need to file a suit for declaration. The plaintiff had title and she only wanted
possession and therefore a suit for possession was maintainable. We are
fortified in this view by the following observations of this Court in
Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594:
“14. We may however clarify that a prayer for declaration will
be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge
to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property.
A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent
defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a
third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is
the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the
other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by
documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper
without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does
not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will
not be necessary for the plaintiff to sue for declaration. ...."
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4816 OF 2016

Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Th. Lrs. 
V
Muddasani Sarojana 
Citation:(2016) 12 SCC 288

Print Page

Leading Judgment on cancellation of deed and declaration that deed is void and voidable

  Section 31 of the Act (corresponding to Sec.39 of the Specific

Relief Act, 1877 - for short, "the old Act") states:



                      "31.    When cancellation may be ordered:-



               (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is

               void   or    voidable,        and       who        has reasonable

               apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding

               may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it

               adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its

               discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered

               up and cancelled.



                      (2)     ...................................."



It is clear from Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.31 of the Act that to enable the appellant get

Ext.B1 cancelled, it must be shown that the said instrument is void or voidable as

against her and the appellant has a reasonable apprehension that if Ext.B1 is

left outstanding, it may cause her serious injury.



        14.    It is said that most part of Sec.39 of the old Act (corresponding to

Sec.31 of the Act) was borrowed from Articles 1906 and 1908 of the Draft New

York Civil Code. The provision for cancellation of a written instrument is based

upon the administration of protective justice for fear that the instrument may be



vexatiously or injuriously used by one against another when the evidence to

challenge such written instrument may be lost or that it may throw a cloud or

suspicion over his title or interest.



      15.     Story, in Equity Jurisprudence (English Edition), 1920 in Article

694 states:



                    "In the first place, then, let us consider in which

             cases, court will direct the delivery up, cancellation or

             rescission of agreements, securities, deeds or other

             instruments. It is obvious that the jurisdiction

             exercised in cases of this sort, is founded upon the

             administration of a protective or preventive justice. If,

             therefore, the instrument was void for matter apparent

             upon the face of it, there was no call to exercise the

             jurisdiction, with the possible exception of instruments

             forming a cloud upon the title to land. The party is

             relieved upon the principle, as it is technically called

             quia timet: that is, for fear that such agreement,

             securities, deeds, or other instruments may be

             vexatiously or injuriously used against him when the

             evidence to impeach them may be lost; or that they

             may now through a cloud or suspicion over his title or

             interest."



      16.     Referring to Chapter V of the Old Act, Whitely Stoks states in

Anglo-Indian Code (Vol.I) at page 934:



                     "Chapter V declares that any person against

              whom a written instrument is void or voidable, who

              has reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it

              may cause him serious injury, may obtain an

              adjudication that it is void or voidable and an order

              that it be delivered up and cancelled.       The relief

              extends    to a forged instrument, and also to one

              originally valid but which has subsequently forged.

              The Chapter applies to cases not unfrequent in India,

              where a party gets possession of document on which

              he might not indeed be able to found a claim in a

              court of justice but which might give him such prima

              facie right against the other as would expose him to

              vexatious demands and litigation."



      17.     The Bombay High Court, in Jeka Dula v. Bai Jivi and others

(AIR 1938 Bombay         37) laid down the      following three conditions for the

application of Sec.39 of the old Act (Sec.31 of the Act):



                     "i.     The written instrument is either void or

              voidable as against the plaintiff.



                     ii.      The plaintiff may reasonably apprehend

              serious    injury     from  the    instrument  being   left

              outstanding.



                     iii.     In view of all the circumstances of the

              case the court considers it reasonable and proper to

              administer the protective and preventive justice asked

              for."



      18.     A Full Bench of the Madras High Court considered the scope of

Sec.39 of the old Act (Sec.31 of the Act)                 in Muppudathi Pillai v.

Krishnaswami Pillai (AIR 1960 Madras 1) and held at page 4 as under:



                     "........... It stands to reason that the executant

              of the document should be either the plaintiff or a

              person who can in certain circumstances bind him. It

              is only then it could be said that the instrument is

              voidable by or void against him. The second aspect of

              the matter emphasises that principle. For there can

              be no apprehension if a mere third party, asserting a

              hostile title creates a document. Thus relief under

              Sec.39 would be granted only in respect of an

              instrument likely to affect the title of the plaintiff and

              not of an instrument executed by a stranger to that

              title."



The Full Bench       illustrated that when a trespasser purports to convey the

property in his own right and not in the right of the owners, the remedy of

cancellation of such an instrument cannot be granted because such a relief

would not remove the cloud upon his title by the instrument and the proper

remedy is to seek a declaration of the plaintiff's own title or a declaration that the

sale deed is not binding or valid against the plaintiff. Thus, when a document is

not executed by the plaintiff or by a person who can in any circumstance bind

him, that document cannot create a cloud upon the title of the true owner, nor

does it create apprehension that it may be a source of danger to him.



      19.     It is only in the case of instruments which are either executed by a

party or purports to have been executed by a party or by a person who can

under certain circumstances bind him that the relief under Sec.31 of the Act can

be claimed in law because in such cases only, could it be said that "there is a

cloud on his title and an apprehension that if the instrument is left outstanding, it

may be a source of danger."          To illustrate, a party who has executed the

document, or a principal in respect of a document executed by his agent or a

minor in respect of a document executed by his guardian, etc., could under

Sec.31 of the Act request the court to deliver up and cancel the document. A

person who neither has executed the document, nor is bound in any

circumstance by the person who executed the document could not seek relief

under Sec.31 of the Act as the document is neither void nor voidable against him

and as such document even if left outstanding is not capable of causing any


injury to him. The remedy of such person, if he thinks that the document may

create a cloud on his own title is to seek a declaration of his own title or that the

impugned document does not affect his title.
 In the present case appellant is not a party to Ext.B1. Nor is the

appellant bound under any circumstance by the person who has executed

Ext.B1. Exhibit B1 is executed by the 2nd respondent acting as power of attorney

holder of the 3rd respondent.    In the circumstances Ext.B1, assignment deed is

neither void nor is voidable against the appellant and hence she could not seek

relief under Sec.31 of the Act. If the appellant thinks that Ext.B1 might create a

cloud on the title she has claimed, her remedy was to sue for declaration of the

title she claims or that Ext.B1 does not affect the titled she claims.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                        PRESENT:

                           MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

                    WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

                                         RSA.No. 1139 of 2010

   KAMALAKSHI AMMA, 
Vs
 Sangeetha    

Print Page