SU P R E M E C O U R T O F INDIA (D.B.

ANAT HU LA SU DHAKAR
V/S
P B U C HI R E DDY

Date of Decision: 25 March 2008

C itation: 2008 LawSuit(SC) 1186

Hon'ble Judges: R V Raveendran, P Sathasivam

C ase T ype: Civil Appeal
C ase No: 6191 of 2001
Subject: Civil, P roperty

Editor's Note:
(A) C ivil Law -- Immovable property -- P ossession and/or T itle -- Appropriate remedy -- Suit for
prohibitory injunction vis-a-vis Suit for declaration and possession -- In case of cloud over plaintiff's title,
where possession is not with plaintiff, suit for declaration and possession, with or without a
consequential injunction would lie -- W here title is not under dispute or under a cloud, but plaintiff is out
of possession, appropriate remedy is to seek possession with consequential injunction -- In case of mere
interference with plaintiff's possession or threat of dispossession, suit for injunction simpliciter, would
serve the purpose. [P aras 11.1, 11.2, 11.3,12,13 & 17 (a)]

(B) Injunction simpliciter -- Suit for this purpose is concerned only with possession -- Normally, issue of
title will not be directly and substantially in issue -- C laim for injunction will be decided with reference to
the finding on possession -- In case de-jure possession has to be decided on the basis of title to
property, as in case of vacant sights, issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration,
as without finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. [P aras 14, 15 & 17
(b)]

(C ) Suit for injunction -- P ractice and procedure vis-a-vis Findings on title -- In such a suit unless there
are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title, either specific or implied, no findings on
title can be rendered -- In cases involving complicated questions of facts and law relating to title, despite
the said pleadings etc. the parties are relegated to comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of
suit for mere injunction -- In case existence of necessary pleadings regarding title and the parties had
led evidence on the point, the situation would be different, if the matter involved is simple and straight-
forward -- In factual back-drop and in law, the plaintiff ought to have filed the title suit, i.e. a suit for
declaration and consequential relief, not suit for injunction simpliciter. [P aras 14, 17 (c), 17 (d), 20 &
21]

(D) C ode of C ivil P rocedure, 1908 -- Section 100 -- Second appeal -- Scope of jurisdiction -- High court
can not re-examine the question of facts -- Nor it can go in to questions which were not pleaded and
which were not subject matter of any issue -- Nor it can formulate a question of law which does not
arise in second appeal -- Moreover, it can not interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the first
appellate court, which held that plaintiff was ought to have filed a suit for declaration -- O rder of the
High court set aside -- Appeal allowed -- T ransfer of P roperty Act -- Section 41. [P aras 23 to 27]

Acts R eferred:
Transfer O f P roperty Act, 1882 Sec 41

Final Decision: Appeal allowed

Eq. C itations: 2008 (2) ApexCJ 660, 2008 (2) RCR(Civ) 879, 2008 (4) Scale 718, 2008 A I R(SCW ) 2692, 2008
(3) KerLT 26, 2008 (26) LCD 923, 2008 (2) W bL R 923, 2008 (3) CivCC 294, 2008 (4) SLT 724, 2009 (1) MadL J
1001, 2008 (supp) DN J 64, 2008 (2) AW C 1768, 2008 (2) LawHerald(SC) 1339, 2008 (3) CriCC 294, 2008 (6)
CTC 237, 2008 (5) AllMR 451, 2008 (5) SCR 331, 2008 (3) I CC 508, 2008 (4) SCC 594, 2009 (2) LW 546,
2008 A I R(SC) 2033, 2008 (3) K CCR 1769, 2008 (2) A RC 914, 2008 (5) SCJ 359, 2009 (2) O rissaL R 388

Advocates: D Mahesh Babu, K Amareswari, P Venkat Reddy, Guntur P rabhakar

C ASE C IT E D IN :
A MI Y A PA RI DA (DEA D) V/S PA RASU RA M K H AT UA A N D OT H ERS, 2016 LawSuit(O ri) 68
A MRU TA K A L U JI SH EJU L; A N N A P U RMA A L I AS B A B Y DAY A RA M GH U GE; GO DAVA RI L A X MA N PA DGH A N;
DA GDU A MRU TA SH EJU L; SH O B H A GH A N SH Y A M GH U GE; K ESH AV A MRU TA SH EJU L; N A RMA DA B A I;
SH ASH I K A L A; SH A N TA B A I; SH RI Y ASH W A N T K A L U JI SH EJU L; CH A N DRA B H A GA Y ASH W A N T SH EJU L;
GU N W A N T Y ASH W A N T SH EJU L; CH H AY A; K A RU N A; GA JA N A N T U K A RA M I N GA L E V/S V I T H A L GA N PAT
W A DEK A R; P RA MI L A GA N ESH RA O K U L E; V I MA L K I RA N DH AVA N E; MEEN A N A MDEO RA O K A L E;
MA H A DEO GA N PAT SU RV E; MA N K A RN A B A I MA DH A O RA O SU RV E; GI RDH A R MA DH A O RA O SU RV E;
MU RL I DH A R MA DH A O RA O SU RV E; VA RSH A SU DH A K A R SO N U N E; SA RL A SU RESH B H AU RA I K E; RA DH A
SU RESH RA O A MB A DE, 2016 LawSuit(Bom) 1021
A N I REDDY A MRU T H A DEV I @ A MRU T H A MMA V/S A N I REDDY VASU DH A @ VASU DH A REDDY , 2016
LawSuit(Hyd) 66
A N T ERJI T K AU R V/S CO L RA JI N DER SI N GH (RET) A N D O RS, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 4701
ASH O K K U MA R V/S MO H D RU STA M & A N R, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 443
B I RL A SI N GH A N D A N OT H ER V/S GU RA U RMA L A N D OT H ERS, 2016 LawSuit(O ri) 760
DEL H I DEV ELO P MEN T AU T H O RI T Y V/S B I REN DER SI N GH & A N R, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 5869
H A B I L K H O RA K I W A L A & A N R V/S SA RA TA I ZO O N K H O RA K I W A L A, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 2947
K AU SH A LY A DEV I & O RS V/S SAT Y A DEV I, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 2561
L A K H MI CH A N D & O RS V/S K A RA N SI N GH & A N R, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 5653
MA L L A P PA SH I V L I N G N A N DA N I V/S B H U SH A N P RA K ASH RI SB U D, 2016 LawSuit(Bom) 293
MA N DA P U RU SH OTTA M Z ATT E V/S CH A N DRA K U MA R PA RASMA L JI CH O RDI Y A; P U RU SH OTTA M W ASU DEO
Z ATT E, 2016 LawSuit(Bom) 1287
MA RU DH A I; PA RA MASI VA M; SU N DA RA RA JA N V/S K AT H A N, 2016 LawSuit(Mad) 1829
MEEN A CSH I P H I LO MEN A MA RT I N S E SH U K L A; A N U RA G B SH U K L A V/S B I N A MA RT I N S; ESMI N A
MA RT I N S; EL I Z A B ET H MA RT I N S; N I T I N B A L A JI V I RJI N K A R, 2016 LawSuit(Bom) 1677
MU DDASA N I V EN K ATA N A RSA I A H V/S MU DDASA N I SA RO JA N A, 2016 LawSuit(SC) 450
N A RAY A N A P PA V/S ERA MMA; K RI SH N A P PA; MU N I Y A P PA; V EN K ATA P PA; V EN K AT ESH A P PA, 2016
LawSuit(Kar) 122
N ETA R SI N GH V/S RA M DI TTA & O RS, 2016 LawSuit(H P ) 569
N O RT H DEL H I MU N I CI PA L CO RP O RAT I O N V/S P RASH A N T N A RU L A & O RS, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 5655
P ERI ASA MY GO U N DER; KO L A N T H A GO U N DER; PA L A N I CH A MY V/S A RASSA PA GO U N DER, 2016
LawSuit(Mad) 2470
P RA H A L L A D @ PA H A L I SA MA L V/S SU LO CH A N A SA MA L & OT H ERS, 2016 LawSuit(O ri) 69
RA N GA N AY A K I A MMA L V/S SA GU N T H A L A; N A GA RA JA N; TA MI L Z H A N B U ; I N B ASEK A RA N; MU N U SA MY ,
2016 LawSuit(Mad) 2582
REMA L DASS DU DEJA V/S SA N TO SH MEH L AW AT, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 86
SA N DEEP K U MA R & O RS V/S SRI PA L & O RS, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 4540
SH B A I J N AT H V/S MU RT I B H A GW A N JA GA N N AT H JI MA H A RA J & A N R, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 4844
SH AU N K I RA M A N D A N OT H ER V/S MA N O J K U MA R A N D OT H ERS, 2016 LawSuit(H P ) 1766
SO H A N L A L A N D OT H ERS V/S JA G DY A L A N D OT H ERS, 2016 LawSuit(H P ) 1921
SU SH I L A SU RI V/S SU SH EEL SU RI A N D O RS, 2016 LawSuit(All) 2554
T H A MA RASSERI RO MA N CAT H O L I C DI O CESE V/S U MA DEV I N A MB I A R, D/O U L L ATT U K A N DI Y I L,
SA N K U N N I, W /O K P P N A MB I A R, 2016 LawSuit(Ker) 1094
T H I RU N AV U K K A RASU V/S RA JAV EL, 2016 LawSuit(Mad) 2600
U TTA M K U MA R CH A K RA B O RT Y, S/O MA N O RA N JA N CH A K RA B O RT Y V/S N I L MO H A N CH O W DH U RY;
A N I MESH CH O U DH U RY, S/O LT N I L MO H A N CH O U DH U RY; GAY ET RI CH O U DH U RY, D/O LT N I L MO H A N
CH O U DH U RY; MA I T RY CH O U DH U RY, D/O LT N I L MO H A N CH O U DH U RY; JAY A N T I CH O U DH U RY, D/O LT
N I L MO H A N CH O U DH U RY; SU K L A CH O U DH U RY, D/O LT N I L MO H A N CH O U DH U RY; K A RA B I CH O U DH U RY,
D/O LT N I L MO H A N CH O U DH U RY; RU PA L I CH O U DH U RY, D/O LT N I L MO H A N CH O U DH U RY , 2016
LawSuit(T R) 371
V I SH RA M @ P RASA D GO V EK A R & O RS V/S SU DESH GO V EK A R (D) B Y L RS & O RS, 2016 LawSuit(SC) 1217
Y O GESH SH A RMA V/S RA J B A L A & O RS, 2016 LawSuit(Del) 5461
Z A REEN A V/S MO H A MED H A N EEF; RA O B A H A DU R B P ; DAVA N A M CO N ST RU CT I O N S P V T LT D; SH O B H A
DEV ELO P ERS LT D; CO RP O RAT I O N O F CI T Y O F B A N GA LO RE, 2016 LawSuit(Kar) 850
A PA PA N N A V/S U SH A SU RESH, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 943
A B DU L H A MED V/S B I L K I SH B A N U ; MA JI D; SA JI D; SEEMA, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 2583
A MI T CH AU H A N V/S SA ML ESH A N D A N OT H ER, 2015 LawSuit(All) 3369
A N N A I A H; SH I VA RA J; SH I VA K U MA R; JAY A MMA V/S L A K SH MA MMA, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 532
ASH I K A L I V/S H A RI GEN, 2015 LawSuit(All) 2549
ASSA M A P EX W EAV ERS & A RT I SA N S CO O P ERAT I V E FEDERAT I O N L I MI T ED (A RT FED) & O RS V/S O N
DEAT H O F SU B O DH CH H A Z A RI K A H I S L EGA L H EI RS B A N EE H A Z A RI K A & O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Gau) 896
B K RA N GA CH A RI; P N RA JK U MA R; A R Y ASO DH A; T S P REMA; K J PA DMI N I V/S L V MO H A N, 2015
LawSuit(Mad) 285
B REA CH CA N DY SW I MMI N G B AT H T RU ST & O RS V/S DI P ESH MEH TA & O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Bom) 2366
CH I T RA V/S K A N N A N, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 400
D RA MA K RI SH N A A N D O RS V/S D B A L A K RI SH N A A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 935
DA L JEET SI N GH V/S CH H A GA N I RA M, 2015 LawSuit(Raj) 2345
DH A RA MPA L; V I N O D K U MA R A N D OT H ERS; GI RDH A R GO PA L V/S N AT H U RA M A N D OT H ERS;
DH A RA MPA L A N D OT H ERS RESP O N DEN TS; V I N O D K U MA R A N D OT H ERS, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 2699
GI RDH A R JET H A A N D OT H ERS V/S MU N I CI PA L CO RP O RAT I O N A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(MP ) 1288
GI RI DH A R & A N OT H ER V/S SH A RN A P PA, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 2829
GU L A B SH A V/S MA H A MMA DY U SU F A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 1903
I MMEDI SETT I L A K SH MI K U MA RI V/S B ATCH U KO N DAY Y A GU P T H A A N D A N OT H ER, 2015 LawSuit(Hyd) 167
JA I SI N GH V/S STAT E O F H P ; K AU L SI N GH A N D A N OT H ER, 2015 LawSuit(H P ) 494
JA N A K DEV I V/S JA GJI T SI N GH A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 2112
JASB I R SI N GH V/S SU K H W I N DER SI N GH, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 6636
K MA RU L ASI DDA P PA V/S SH I VA MU RT H AY Y A @ SH I VA MU RT H Y SW A MY; SU SH EEL A MMA, 2015 LawSuit(Kar)
655
K S A N N EGO W DA; SAV I T H RA MMA V/S B H RA MESH, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 1394
L A K SH MA MMA; M SA RASW AT H I V/S RO O P ESH B; P B V I JAY SH A N K A R; REMCO (B H EL) H O U SE, 2015
LawSuit(Kar) 2934
L A K SH MI N A RASA MMA V/S MA N GA L A GO W RI N A G; MA RK A N DA N A I DU ; L S MA N I, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 450
M C SMI T H A V/S G SRI N I VAS, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 1861
M RA MA MO O RT H Y; R SEN T H I L K U MA R V/S R T H I RU N AV U K K A RASU , 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 1611
MA H A DEO RA O S/O DA MDU JI SATAW N E V/S N A GP U R I MP RO V EMEN T T RU ST, 2015 LawSuit(Bom) 606
MA N GA L A GO W RI; SA CH I DA N A N DA N A GA R-GI RI N A GA R; SH A L I N I V P RA B H U,; H K A N A N T H A RA M; K
SU B RA MA N Y A B H AT; A N U RA DH A GU P T H A; K A N A N T H B H AT; T V I SH W A N AT H A REDDY; RAT N A K A R
H EGDE; N I RMA L A TA L K A L V/S V I SH W A B H A RAT H I H O U SE B U I L DI N G; H L A N K A P PA; N A N JA MMA; STAT E
O F K A RN ATA K A; CI RCL E I N SP ECTO R O F P O L I CE, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 334
MA N O J K U MA R V/S MA N GRU Y A DAV A N D 4 OT H ERS, 2015 LawSuit(All) 4102
MO H A MED I LY AS V/S P P RA K ASH; J SH EK A R; K H AT EEB A H MED, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 2933
MU K H T I A R SI N GH V/S CH I EF EN GI N EER (I&F) I RRI GAT I O N A N D FLO O D CO N T RO L DEPA RT MEN T & O RS,
2015 LawSuit(Del) 3088
MU N I CI PA L B O A RD, JH U N JH U N U V/S GO K U L CH A N D A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Raj) 1713
MU N N I B EGU M (DECEASED) A N D O RS V/S JA GB I R SI N GH Y A DAV & O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Del) 755
MU T H U P I L L A I; V I N AY A GA M V/S K ASI P I L L A I; VA RA DH A N, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 1629
N A GA R PA L I K A, B H A RAT P U R A N D O RS V/S GI RDH A RI A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Raj) 1155
N A RAY A N W A I N GA N K A R; GU RU N AT H W A I N GA N K A R; SA N TO SH W A I N GA N K A R A N D O RS V/S
A RCH DI O CESE O F GO A & DA MA N PA CO PAT RI A RA L REL I GI O U S I N ST I T U T I O N, 2015 LawSuit(Bom) 1517
N AT H U RA M & A N R V/S P U K H RA J/MA H EN DRA K U MA R K A RTA A N D SO N/GRA N D SO N O F P O O N A M
CH A N D P O RW A L-JA I N & A N R, 2015 LawSuit(Raj) 2224
P N SH Y L A JA V/S B V I TTA L A SH ETT Y , 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 732
P SH A N MU GA M; S DH A RMA RA J V/S P K AT H I RV EL, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 2162
P SH Y A MA L A V/S RAV I, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 959
PA RMI N DER SI N GH V/S MA N JI T SI N GH & O RS, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 7126
P H U L CH A N D A N D OT H ERS V/S SA N JAY A GGA RW A L A N D A N OT H ER, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 3000
R A P PA DU RA I V/S T K SA MI K K A N N U , 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 1803
RA M K I SH A N V/S PAT I Y A RA M A N D OT H ERS, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 753
SAT Y A B H A MA B EH U RA V/S RA JESH K U MA R A GA RW A L A N D A N OT H ER, 2015 LawSuit(O ri) 699
SELVA RAT H I N AT H A MMA L V/S R RA JESW A RI, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 1596
STAT E O F H P A N D OT H ERS V/S B A L DEV A N D OT H ERS, 2015 LawSuit(H P ) 1243
STAT E O F H P & A N R V/S SAU N U RA M & O RS, 2015 LawSuit(H P ) 1224
T S V I JAY A RA O V/S SU SI L A; V I DJEA CO U MA R; V EN GA DESSA N; SEGA R; SA K T H MO U RO U GA N E A N D
OT H ERS, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 1676
TA RA CH A N D JA MN A DAS W A GW A N I; N AT H O MA L JA MN A DAS W A GW A N I V/S A N U SAY A B A I B A P U JI
CH A N DRA MO RE, 2015 LawSuit(Bom) 1290
T EK CH A N D V/S DEL H I DEV ELO P MEN T AU T H O RI T Y & O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Del) 5088
T H I P P EGO W DA V/S B D JAVA RAY ASH ETT Y A N D OT H ERS, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 3170
U DMI V/S B I RB A L, 2015 LawSuit(P &H) 275
U MA M S V/S N A N DI SH A I A H A N D O RS, 2015 LawSuit(Kar) 1279
V N K RI SH N ASA MY; K DA K SH I N A MO O RT H Y V/S E S VASU DEVA N, 2015 LawSuit(Mad) 718
V I JAY SI N GH V/S K H U MA N SI N GH, 2015 LawSuit(Raj) 1577
A B N ASH CH A N DER MA H A JA N V/S V I K AS P RO MOT ERS (P ) LT D, 2014 LawSuit(CL B) 17
A K B A RSA B S/O H U SEN SA B CH I TAW A DA GI A N D O RS V/S T I P PAW W A W /O B ASA P PA K A RA B I ST I A N D
O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 255
A N N AT H A I; DU RA I MU RU GA N V/S PA AT H U , 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 951
A RI K K U L A N GA RA K U N H I K K ELOT H RI GH ESH B A B U V/S P U L L A N H O DA N K U N N OT H GO PA L A N N A MB I A R,
2014 LawSuit(Ker) 1849
B A B L I V/S U SH A A N D OT H ERS, 2014 LawSuit(P &H) 1988
B A N W A RI L A L & A N OT H ER V/S CH A N D B EH A RI & O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Raj) 2399
B H EEMA JJA S/O H A N A MA N TA P PA H U GA R A N D O RS V/S SH A MA N N A S/O N A GA P PA MA N TA GERI A N D O RS,
2014 LawSuit(Kar) 192
C CH I N N A P PA; K N AT ESH V/S P CH A N DRA MO U LY; B H A GY A MMA; G K A RU N A N I DH I; JU L I E; T
MA H ESW A RA REDDY; MA RI Y A P PA; S B A L U ; P RI Y A MA L I N I; P V I JAY A SI N GH; B AT H Y A P PA; C
CH I N N A P PA, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 718
C K B A B DO SS V/S R S ASO K A N, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2427
CH A N DA N K U MA R MA L A K A R A N D O RS V/S MI L A N TA L U K DA R A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Cal) 229
CH I N TA MA N I K A N DI (DEA D) A FT ER H I M V/S A RJU N A K A N DI A N D OT H ERS, 2014 LawSuit(O ri) 552
DA MA CI A N O FERN A N DES V/S ST A N T H O N Y S CH A P EL; REGI N A L DO DSO U Z A, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 854
DU RGA K A L A MA N DI R, KOT H A GU DEM V/S S P U L L A RA O (DI ED) P ER L RS, 2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 1236
G B A L A K RI SH N A N; K SI GA MA N I V/S K JAY A L A K SH MI, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 1576
GRA M PA N CH AY AT A N D O RS V/S H ASI MASA B MO H A MMA DSA B A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 464
GU RU DAS Y ESH W A N T P EDN EK A R V/S SH A RA DA A L I AS RA DH A B A I MA N GU ESH K EN K RE; ASH O K
MA N GU ESH K EN K RE, MA JO R; SU JATA ASH O K K EN K RE, MA JO R; RA JEN DRA MA N GU ESH K EN K RE, MA JO R;
SH U B H A RA JEN DRA K EN K RE, MA JO R, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 2850
J K RA JEN DRA N V/S C Y ASO DH A A N D A N OT H ER, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2529
JA I W A N TA S/O K I SH A N TA MK A R V/S N A MDEO RA MJI T EMK A R A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 2007
JAY A N T H I PA DMA P RI Y A V/S K SELVA RA J; GO V I N DA N; RA MAY EE; G SEK A R, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 761
JH A MA N DAS V/S RA MESH CH A N D & O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Raj) 943
K A L I V/S M J CH ERI A N, 2014 LawSuit(Ker) 536
K V I JAY A; K A L I Y A MU RT H Y V/S CH A N DRA; RA JEN DRA N, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 780
K A L AVAT H Y V/S A PA N DI A N, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 873
K A N CH A N K A P O O R & O RS V/S SA RW A N K U MA R, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 4809
K I RLO SK A R SY ST EMS LT D A N D O RS V/S SY ED I Q B A L A H MED, S/O SY ED A B B AS A N D O RS, 2014
LawSuit(Kar) 205
K I SH O RE GU P TA V/S K K K U RI A N, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 5095
KO LT E PAT I L DEV ELO P ERS LT D V/S N T I H O U SI N G CO -O P ERAT I V E SO CI ET Y; CV L SH AST RY S/O L AT E N
V EN K ATASU B B A SH AST RY , 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 2049
K U MA R B ROT H ERS & CO MPA N Y V/S A P H O U SI N G B O A RD A N D A N OT H ER, 2014 LawSuit(A P ) 185
L DA K SH I N A MU RT H Y S/O L I N GA P PA V/S K S REVA N ASI DDA P PA S/O K S SI DDA P PA, 2014 LawSuit(Kar)
749
L A X MA N A GO U DA S/O RAY A N A GO U DA PAT I L A N D O RS V/S MA L L ESH A P PA S/O A N N A P PA B O RA GA L A N D
O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 242
M B ASK A R V/S SU B REGI ST RA R, PA DA P PA I; TA H SI L DA R, O FFI CE O F TA H SI L DA R; M PA RA MESH W A RI; E
RA JA K U MA RI; SA MPAT H; SELVA MA N I, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2373
M M SEB AST I Y A N V/S U RB A N I MP RO V EMEN T T RU ST, U DA I P U R, 2014 LawSuit(Raj) 1072
MA MATA N JA L I SA H O O V/S A RN A P U RN A MEMO RI A L CH A RI TA B L E T RU ST, 2014 LawSuit(O ri) 490
MA N N A Z H A GA N; A N B A Z H A GA N V/S SELVA RA J, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 1705
MI N A SRI N I VASA N K RI SH N A N; SRI N I VASA N K RI SH N A N V/S A RU N B H ASK A R A DA RK A R, 2014
LawSuit(Bom) 1738
MI N A SRI N I VASA N K RI SH N A N; SRI N I VASA N K RI SH N A N V/S A RU N B H ASK A R A DA RK A R, 2014
LawSuit(Bom) 876
MO K U L I N T ERN AT I O N A L LT D & A N R V/S V EEN A PA I N TA L, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 1107
MO N I K A A RO RA V/S A MA RJI T SI N GH A N D OT H ERS, 2014 LawSuit(P &H) 5781
N A RAY A N SI N GH A N D O RS V/S GH EESU SI N GH; DA RI Y A K A N W A R; B H O P SI N GH; RAW AT SI N GH;
DA RI Y A K A N W A R A N D O RS ; DA A N SI N GH; MA DH O SI N GH; GA J SI N GH; A RJU N SI N GH; MO A P SI N GH;
B H A N W A R SI N GH, 2014 LawSuit(Raj) 1878
N I RMA L A B EN GO H I L V/S RA MESH SI N H SA JU B H A JA DEJA A N D A N R, 2014 LawSuit(Guj) 602
PA N N A L A L A L I AS PA N JI O F L RS V/S GH EESA L A L A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Raj) 1045
P ERU MA L V/S MA DAT H I A MMA L, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 1936
Q DAW SO N V/S U N I O N O F I N DI A; CH A I RMA N MEDI CA L CO U N CI L O F I N DI A; STAT E; S
JA GAT H RATCH A GA N; L A K SH MI A MMA L EDU CAT I O N A L T RU ST; B H A RAT H I N ST I T U T E O F H I GH ER
EDU CAT I O N; SA RO JA; L EEN A H I B B A; DAV I D CH A MB ERS; RO B I N CH A MB ERS; SY LV I A; SU SA N
CH A MB ERS, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 1662
R K A RU P P U SA MY V/S P SI VA RA J, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 1015
RA JU V/S B A B U RA O , 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 1875
RA MA H A N U MA I A H, S/O N A RASI MH A I A H V/S K EMPA I A H, S/O GA N GA I A H; RA MA H A N U MA I A H, S/O
K EMPA I A H, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 729
RA MU ; RA JI V/S L A K SH MI, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 450
RAT N A RO U N DER V/S A N N A MA L A I A N D OT H ERS, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 3826
S MEEN A K SH I SU N DA RA M; S MA H A L I N GA M; S RA JA MA N I CK A M V/S EX ECU T I V E O FFI CER SEERA PA L L I
TO W N PA N CH AY AT, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2321
SA RI K A V/S K U SU ML ATA; MA H EN DRA, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 730
SEL L AY I A N D O RS V/S VA L L I A MMA L A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2536
SH Y A MB A I V/S P REM, 2014 LawSuit(Chh) 124
SI DDA RA MEGO W DA V/S N A GA N N A; C N PA DMA MMA; C N B A GAY A MMA; C N MA N JU L A; C K
RA MA N U JA I A H; P SRI K A N T EGO W DA, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 1290
STAT E O F A N DH RA P RA DESH V/S SATT I RA JU A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Hyd) 1068
SU DESH A RO RA V/S STAT E O F H A RY A N A A N D OT H ERS, 2014 LawSuit(P &H) 3304
SU DH A JA I SW A L V/S SU N I L JA I SW A L, 2014 LawSuit(MP ) 2391
SU DH A K A RA REDDY V/S L A K SH MA MMA, 2014 LawSuit(A P ) 369
SU RESH K A KO DK A R; SU REK H A SU RESH K A KO DK A R V/S V I N AY A K GO P I N AT H N A I K K A RMA L I; A N I L H A RI
P RA B H U DESSA I; CU RCH O REM MU N I CI PA L CO U N CI L, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 1078
SU RY A RA MCH A N DRA N A I K A N D O RS V/S SU X I L A T U K A RA M N A I Q U E A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 1701
T H A N JI A MMA L V/S K U TTA CH I A MMA L A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 390
V EL U V/S RA JAT H I A N D O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Mad) 2607
Y EL L A P PA V/S H U SSA I N SA B FA K RU SA B A N GA DI, 2014 LawSuit(Kar) 1849
Y ESH W A N T B A LW A N T B A DAV E; U DH AV RA O GA N ESH B A DAV E; DI PA K MA H A DEO B A DAV E; SU RESH
K ASH I N AT H B A DAV E; H A RI B H AU N A RAY A N B A DAV E; DI N K A R B A P U RA O B A DAV E; GA JA N A N A
RA MCH A N DRA B A DAV E V/S Y O GI RA JEN DRA SH I VA CH A RY A GU RU MA H A DL I N G SW A MI I N A MDA R;
MA L L A K A RJU N GU RU MA H A DL I N GAY Y A; GO U I N GAY Y A GU RU MA H A DI L I N GY Y A; A MRU T ESH W A R
V I SH VA N AT H K AVA DE; GU RU L I N G B A L L I N G K AVA DE, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 1171
Y U DH V I R SI N GH V/S DH A RA MV I R & O RS, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 4305
A S V EDH A GI RI V/S GO V I N DA MMA L A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 567
A JI T A N A N D V/S PA PA I A H A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Kar) 565
A MB EY CH A RA N SRI W ASTAVA V/S MU N I CI PA L CO RP O RAT I O N A N D A N OT H ER, 2013 LawSuit(Raj) 923
A RU L P RA K ASA M JO SEP H V/S EL I Y AS, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 1901
B A B U RA M A N D O RS V/S GU RCH A RA N SI N GH A N D A N OT H ER, 2013 LawSuit(P &H) 4145
B A B Y RA N I DEB A N D O RS V/S MA N I K DEY A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Gau) 622
D SA RO JA V/S MEERA N SA H I B A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 62
DAV I N DER K AU R V/S P U N JA B & SI N DH B A N K A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Del) 2929
FRA N CI SCO DCO STA A N D O RS V/S FRA N CI SCO X AV I ER DCO STA A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Bom) 1953
FRA N CI SCO X AV I ER FERRA O V/S P RO F FI LO MEN O B O N I FA CI O DE V I ERA MEN EZ ES A N D O RS, 2013
LawSuit(Bom) 274
G RA MA CH A N DI RA N V/S S A RU MU GA M SO N O F CH A K RA PA N I, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 211
GA RL A PAT I V EN K AT ESW A RL U V/S DI V I A P PA L A CH A RY U L U , 2013 LawSuit(A P ) 1052
H A REN DER SI N GH & O RS V/S A DI VASI K A LY A N SA MI TT EE, 2013 LawSuit(Del) 4454
K P A N N A DU RA I V/S K A L A I SELV I; A RU N N EH RU ; A N A N D; K A MA L A M, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 365
K SRI N I VASA RA O S/O K V EN K AT ESW A R RA O A N D O RS V/S S N A RAY A N A N A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Mad)
2656
K A N CH A N DEV I V/S RI I CO & O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Raj) 1352
K A N T H ASW A MY S/O PA Z H A N N I A P PA U DAY A R A N D O RS V/S RA JA MMA W /O B A B U RA J, 2013 LawSuit(Ker)
104
K A RA M SI N GH A N D A N OT H ER V/S B A H A L SI N GH A N D A N OT H ER, 2013 LawSuit(P &H) 5011
K RI SH N A A N D O RS V/S VA N I T H A A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Kar) 1015
M H O N N A P PA S/O MA DA P PA V/S DU N DA MMA W /O L AT E SH I VA P PA, 2013 LawSuit(Kar) 356
MA RI A MMA A N D O RS V/S S N N A REN DRA P RASA D A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Kar) 1199
MO O DA L A P PA V/S G P JA GA DI SH A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Kar) 2527
MU L K RA J K H U L L A R V/S A N I L K A P U R & O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Del) 4010
N A RASA MMA V EN K AT ESH A P PA A N D T C MA DDI REDDY V/S D S N A RASI REDDY A N D D S N A GI REDDY ,
2013 LawSuit(Kar) 3288
PA L A N I A MMA L V/S K U P PA L (DI ED) A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 2784
PATT Y A K K A L A DU RGA DEV I T EMP L E V/S SI VA JI S/O MU T H U P I L L A I, 2013 LawSuit(Ker) 825
RA M N A RESH SI N GH V/S RA M PA L SI N GH A N D OT H ERS, 2013 LawSuit(All) 683
S K A L A I A RASI V/S SI VA N MA L A I; SA RASW AT H I, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 220
SH ASH I A N D O RS V/S SU DERSH A N SH A RMA A N D O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Del) 5118
SH I B A P RASA D DAS V/S V Y SA T EL I JAT I Y A SA MI T I, CU TTA CK, 2013 LawSuit(O ri) 127
SU B RA MA N I A N; DEV I; B H U VA N ESW A RI V/S H A B I B U L L A H; MA N SU R A L I, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 908
SU N I L B A RA N DU TTA V/S K A MA L A B A L A DU TTA & O RS, 2013 LawSuit(Cal) 335
U L A H A N N A N JO H N V/S Y ESO DH A K, 2013 LawSuit(Ker) 49
V EGEN DL A V I JAY A L A K SH MI A N D OT H ERS V/S GA DDI PAT I N A GA H I MA B I N DU A N D OT H ERS, 2013
LawSuit(A P ) 185
V EN K ATA CH A L A M A N D A N OT H ER V/S N A L L AT H A MB I, 2013 LawSuit(Mad) 3004
V I REN DER K U MA R GA RG V/S RAV I N DER K U MA R GA RG, 2013 LawSuit(Del) 4540
V I SH RA M A L I AS P RASA D GO V EK A R, S/O JA GA N AT H GO V EK A R; SU N I TA GO V EK A R, W I FE O F V I SH RA M
A L I AS P RASA D GO V EK A R; H A RSH A D GO V EK A R, S/O V I SH RA M A L I AS P RASA D GO V EK A R V/S SU DESH
GO V EK A R; SU SH I L A SU DESH GO V EK A R; A RT I GO V EK A R; SA N JEEV SI N A I U SGA O N K A R; RA MDAS
GA O N K A R, S/O O F L AT E GO V I N D GA O N K A R; L I L AVAT I GO V EK A R, 2013 LawSuit(Bom) 2583
A N GAT I TATAY Y A S/O A P PA N N A V/S VA K A DA SA N Y ASI RA O S/O CH I N A A P PA N N A, 2012 LawSuit(A P ) 501
C N A GA MA N I CK AY A A N D O RS V/S K SY A MA N T H A K A MMA A N D O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 168
DEVASU N DA RA M V/S PA N DA RI N AT H A DEVA R, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 1151
DEV EN DRA N V/S RA MA L I N GA PA DAY ATCH I A N D O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 22
E CH A N DRASEK A R & A N OT H ER V/S V N A DA MU N I & OT H ERS, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 1998
ET H I RA J A N D O RS V/S SA MP O O RN A MMA L A N D O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 927
K SU B RA MA N I, K EASW A RA N, K P PA RA MASI VA M V/S DEV I A MMA L, L DEVA RA J, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 287
K RI SH N A MO O RT H Y V/S SI N GA RAV EL CH ETT I A R, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 512
MA H ESH JH A & O RS V/S Y ASO DA DEV I, 2012 LawSuit(Pat) 340
N A N A K CH A N D A N D O RS V/S RA JA RA K ESH A N D O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Del) 1669
P RASH A N T K U MA R DA B RA L A N D O RS V/S DI GV I JAY SI N GH A N D A N OT H ER, 2012 LawSuit(U tt) 771
P U L I K K A L PAT H U MMA U MMA V/S STAT E O F K ERA L A, 2012 LawSuit(Ker) 266
RA J K U MA RI GA RG V/S S M EZ A Z & O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Del) 2124
RA MA K RI SH N A S/O SH I VA N N EGO W DA V/S K T SU JAT H A W /O B K DO DDEGO W DA, 2012 LawSuit(Kar)
1018
RA N B I R SI N GH V/S DA L B I R SI N GH A N D O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Del) 1876
S R SELVA RA J; S SU RESH K U MA R; S RAV I RAT H N A M; S RA JA RAT H I N A M; K U DI A RASU DEV I V/S K RI SH N A
RAT H I A MMA L; SA N T H A N A L A K SH MI A MMA L; S ASH O K A N A N D O RS, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 1058
SY ED DH AST H A K EER V/S N AVA B JO H N, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 1368
T H I MMA P PA GO U N DER A N D O RS ; T H I RU MA K K A L; T SU B B I A N V/S K A RN A N, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 50
T H I RU N A N ASA MB A N DA M S/O SU N DA RA M MU DA L I A R; RA JASEK A R; PA L A N I V/S SH A N MU GA M S/O
A N N A MA L A I A N D A N R, 2012 LawSuit(Mad) 451
TO L A RA M V/S MO H A N L A L, 2012 LawSuit(Raj) 729
V K RI SH N A MU RT H Y A N D O RS V/S H A N U MA N T H A DEVA RU T RU ST, 2012 LawSuit(Kar) 1054
A N N A DU RA I A N D O RS V/S R MA N O H A R A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2560
ASH O K K U MA R V/S MCD A N D A N R, 2011 LawSuit(Del) 499
B A L ASU B RA MA N I A N V/S K RA JA MMA L; K GO PA L A K RI SH N A N, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2411
B H AVA N A MMA W I FE O F L AT E SESH A GI RI Y A P PA, SREEMAT H I W I FE O F SAT I SH V/S V N DO N GA RE,
N A RAY A N A DO N GA RE, 2011 LawSuit(Kar) 1583
FLT LT D GU RCH A RA N SI N GH SO H A L (RET D ) V/S JASB I R K AU R SO H A L A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Del) 3210
GA N ESA N V/S A AT H I MO O L A PA N DI T H A N, P ERI ASW A MY A N D L A K SH MA N A N, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 3961
I N DI RA SA MRA J V/S A RU L MI GH U H A N U MA R V EERESW A RA M A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2570
I N DRA RA JA A N D O RS V/S JO H N Y ESU RET H I N A M A L I AS DU RA I, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2464
I N DU K U RU RA MA CH A N DRA REDDY A N D A N OT H ER V/S A GN I GU N DA L A V EN K ATA RA N GA RA O , 2011
LawSuit(A P ) 960
JEET MA L (SI N CE DECEASED) A N D O RS V/S B H U P EN DRA K U MA R SO N O F A K H ERA J JI N DA N I JA I N A N D
O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Raj) 1012
JEFFREY MAT H U RA N AY A GA M A N D O RS V/S ASH A A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 1762
K RI SH N A H A RI VA I N GA N K A R V/S T U K A RA M B H I VA VA I N GA N K A R, 2011 LawSuit(Bom) 978
MI RZ A B ASH A RAT H A L I K H A N V/S P JA GA N N AT H RA O , 2011 LawSuit(A P ) 145
MO H A N SI N GH V/S K EW A L RA M A N D A N R, 2011 LawSuit(H P ) 344
MU RU GA I Y A N @ SU B RA MA N I A N; SELVA M; T H I RU V EN K A DA M; DH A N RA J; JAY A B A L V/S DH A N ASEK A RA N,
2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2093
N A GA R PA L I K A PA RI SH A D V/S Z A K I R H ASA N A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(All) 781
P L A K SH MA N A N A N D L T H A N GA RA J V/S P A RU MU GA M (DI ED) A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 118
PA LTO O RA M (DECEASED) T H RO U GH L RS V/S U MA DEV I, 2011 LawSuit(Del) 1854
P RA DI P O V ERSEAS P V T LT D V/S ESS B EE FA B RI CS P V T LT D, 2011 LawSuit(Guj) 1306
R C CH U RCH VA L L I P U RA M A N D O RS V/S K SEERA N GA GO U N DER A N D O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2478
R MO H A N ASU N DA RA M A N D OT H ERS V/S A RU L MI GU KO L AV I Z H I A MMA N T EMP L E A N D OT H ERS, 2011
LawSuit(Mad) 2916
R SU RI Y A N A RAY A N A N V/S C VASA N T H A L, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2518
RA M PA L V/S O M P RA K ASH A N D OT H ERS, 2011 LawSuit(P &H) 2945
SH ET H I A N AV I N CH A N DRA VA L L A B H B H A I V/S CH A N I A A L I U MA R A N D 11 O RS, 2011 LawSuit(Guj) 613
T EJ K AU R (DECEASED) H ER L RS A N D OT H ERS V/S B A L DEV PA RSH A D A N D OT H ERS, 2011 LawSuit(P &H)
3545
T H AVASI T H EVA R A N D O RS V/S RA N GASA MY , 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2605
T RI CH I RA P PA L L I CI T Y MU N I CI PA L CO RP O RAT I O N V/S SEN T H I L K U MA RI, 2011 LawSuit(Mad) 2648
B S SU B B A RA JU S/O SH AY A MA RA JU A N D O RS V/S JA MU N A W /O S M K U MA R A N D O RS, 2010
LawSuit(Kar) 1022
B A L DEV K RI SH A N K A L RA (DECD ) T H RO U GH L RS V/S MA N GA L SA I N K A L RA, 2010 LawSuit(Del) 1958
DI N ESH K U MA R V/S Y U SU F A L I, 2010 LawSuit(SC) 397
E SAT H I DASS V/S C P O N N U SW A MY A N D C A RU MU GA M, 2010 LawSuit(Mad) 3757
GI TA A B H Y A N K A R V/S V I K RA M A B H Y A N K A R A N D O RS, 2010 LawSuit(Del) 2652
GU RDI P SI N GH A N D O RS V/S MA H A B I R SI N GH A N D O RS, 2010 LawSuit(P &H) 2021
I MP RO V EMEN T T RU ST PAT I A L A A DMI N I ST RATO R/CH A I RMA N V/S JASW I N DER K AU R, 2010 LawSuit(P &H)
5546
J P B U I L DERS & A N R V/S A RA MA DAS RA O & A N R, 2010 LawSuit(SC) 831
MA RU T H A MU T H U V/S K A L I A P ERU MA L (DI ED) A N D O RS, 2010 LawSuit(Mad) 3833
P K U MA R V/S STAT E O F TA MI L N A DU A N D O RS, 2010 LawSuit(Mad) 3876
RAU PA DMA A N D O RS V/S GAY AT RI DEV I, 2010 LawSuit(Mad) 615
SA N TO SH RA N I A N D A N R V/S B H A RAT RA J A N D O RS, 2010 LawSuit(P &H) 4232
SI RI Y A L A W I FE O F L AT E SH A N T I L A L A N D O RS V/S B N RA MESH SO N O F N A GA P PA, CH A RT ERED
A CCO U N TA N T, 2010 LawSuit(Kar) 216
V I N AY RA I V/S A N I L RA I, 2010 LawSuit(Del) 1708
V O L : 2; SU N N I CEN T RA L B O A RD O F W A Q FS A N D O RS V/S GO PA L SI N GH V I SH A RA D A N D O RS, 2010
LawSuit(All) 94
A P H I LO MA N RA J V/S S K U N N A GO U N DER; A A RO CK I ASA MY; A CH I N N A P PA N, 2009 LawSuit(Mad) 2477
CH A RA N JI T V/S N A GR PA N CH AY AT B EGO W A L A N D O RS, 2009 LawSuit(P &H) 979
DAU L AT RA M (DECEASED B Y L RS ) A N D A N R V/S GO PA L K RI SH N A B A LO DI A N D O RS, 2009 LawSuit(U tt)
321
DAV EN DER L A L MEH TA V/S SH DH A RMEN DER MEH TA A N D A N R, 2009 LawSuit(Del) 1479
DAY A L DAS GA N GW A N I & A N R V/S SH A N T I SH U K L A & O RS, 2009 LawSuit(Chh) 533
JOT H I RA MA L I N GA M V/S M N SI VA GN A N A P RA K ASA M; M N SH A N MU GH A M; V RA MA L I N GA M, 2009
LawSuit(Mad) 3178
R PA N N ERSELVA M V/S A SU B RA MA N I A N A N D A N OT H ER, 2009 LawSuit(Mad) 4212
T U K A A M L A X MA N K A RA L E V/S B A B A GO V I N D SASE A N D MA RU T I V I T H O B A W A RE, 2009 LawSuit(Bom)
979
K U REL L A N A GA DRU VA V U DAY A B H ASK A RA RA O V/S GA L L A JA N I K A MMA A L I AS N A CH A RA MMA, 2008
LawSuit(SC) 1250
C ASE S R E FE R R E D :
SA JJA DA N ASH I N SAY ED MD. V S. MU SA DA DA B H A I U MMER, 2000 (3) SCC 350
SU LO CH A N A A MMA V S. N A RAY A N A N N A I R, 1994 (2) SCC 14
VA N A GI RI SRI SEL L I A MMA N AY Y A N A R U T H I RASO MASU N DA RESW A RA R T EMP L E V S. RA JA N GA ASA RI,
1965 A I R(Mad) 355

Judgment T ext:-

R V R aveendran, J.

[1] This appeal by special leave is by the defendant in a suit for permanent injunction. P uli Chandra Reddy
and P uli Buchi Reddy were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Both are now no more. The Legal Representatives of
P uli Chandra Reddy are Respondents 2 to 5 and Legal Representatives of P uli Buchi Reddy are Respondent 1
(i) to (iii). The suit related to two sites bearing no. 13/776/B and 13/776/C measuring 110 sq. yards and 187
sq. yards in Matwada, W arangal town, together referred to as the 'suit property'.

[2] P laintiffs 1 and 2 claimed to be the respective owners in possession of the said two sites having
purchased them under two registered sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 (Exs.A1 and A2) from Rukminibai. The
plaintiffs further claimed that the said two sites were mutated in their names in the municipal records. They
alleged that on 3.5.1978, when they were digging trenches in order to commence construction, the defendant
interfered with the said work. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed suit O S No.279 of 1978 in the file of P rincipal
District Munsiff, W arangal, for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with their
possession.

[3] Defendant resisted the suit. He claimed that suit property measuring 300 sq. yards in P remises No.
13/776 was purchased by him from K. V. Damodar Rao (brother of plaintiffs' vendor Rukminibai) under
registered sale deed dated 7.11.1977 (Ex.B1); that he was put in possession of the suit property by Damodar
Rao; that the suit property had been transferred to his name in the municipal records; that he applied for and
obtained sanction of a plan for construction of a building thereon; and that he had also obtained a loan for
such construction from the Central Government by mortgaging the said property. According to him, when he
commenced construction in the suit property, the plaintiffs tried to interfere with his possession and filed a
false suit claiming to be in possession.

[4] The trial court framed the following issues - (i) whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the
suit sites (house plots)? (ii) whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs over
the suit plots? (iii) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction; and (iv) to what relief. The
plaintiffs examined themselves as P W 1 and P W 2. They examined their vendor Rukminibai as P W 4. P uli Malla
Reddy and Vadula Ramachandram examined as P W 3 and P W 5, were the purchasers of two adjacent sites from
Rukminibai. O ne of them (P W 3) was the cousin of plaintiffs and was also the scribe and attestor in respect of
the two sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs. P laintiffs exhibited the two sale deeds dated 9.12.1968 in their
favour as Ex.A1 and A2 and municipal demand notices and tax receipts, all of the year 1978 onwards, as
Ex.A3 to A11. A plan showing the sites was marked as Ex.A12. Two letters said to have written by Damodar
Rao were marked as Ex.A13 and A14. The sale deed executed by Rukminibai in favour of P W 3 was marked as
Ex.X1 and sale agreement in favour of P W 5 was marked as Ex.X2. The defendant gave evidence as DW 1 and
examined his vendor Damodar Rao as DW 2. He exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.11.1977
in his favour as Ex.B1, a certified copy of mortgage deed executed by him in favour of Central Government as
Ex.B2, the licence and sanctioned plan for construction of a house in the suit plot as Ex.B3 and B4 and the
loan sanction proceedings as Ex.B5. He also exhibited a property tax receipt dated 12.2.1978 issued to
Damodar Rao (Ex.B6), water charge bill dated 20.9.1978 for house No. 13/775 and 13/776 issued to Damodar
Rao (Ex.B7), and property tax receipts dated 19.2.1972, 14.10.1973, 28.3.1970 and 13.11.1968 in the name
of Damodar Rao (Ex. B8 to B11).

[5] There was no dispute that the site purchased by the defendant from Damodar Rao under deed dated
7.11.1977 is the same as the two sites purchased by plaintiffs from Rukminibai under sale deeds dated
9.1.1968.

There is also no dispute that the suit property is a vacant plot and it was originally portion of the
backyard of the property bearing nos. 13/775 and 13/776, belonging to Damodar Rao, and that he was
shown as registered owner of the said properties No.13/775 and 13/776 in the municipal records.

[6] The plaintiffs led evidence to the effect that Damador Rao orally gifted the backyard portion of No.13/775
and 13/776, (separated from the main building by a dividing wall) to his sister Rukminibai in the year 1961, by
way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam' (a gift made to a daughter or sister, conferring absolute title, out of love and
affection, with a view to provide for her); that Rukminibai sold three portions of the gifted site to P W 3,
plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 in the year 1968 and they were in possession ever since 1968; and that an
agreement of sale was also entered in regard to another portion with P W 5 as per Ex.X2. O n the other hand,
defendant led evidence denying that the suit property was given to Rukminibai by way of 'Pasupu
Kumkumam'. His vendor Damodar Rao gave evidence that he was the owner of the suit property and he sold it
to the defendant under deed dated 7.11.1977 and put him in possession thereof. W hile plaintiffs alleged that
plots were mutated in their names after their purchase, defendant alleged that the suit property purchased by
him was a part of plot No.13/776 which stood in the name of Damodar Rao in the municipal records. Neither
party produced the order of mutation or any certificate from the municipal authorities, certifying or showing
mutation to their names. They only produced tax receipts. The tax receipts produced by plaintiffs showed that
they had paid taxes from 1978 onwards, that is for a period subsequent to the sale by Damodar Rao in favour
of defendant. P laintiffs did not produce any tax paid receipt to show that the property stood in the name of
Rukminibai. Nor did they produce any tax receipt for the period 9.12.1968 (date of purchase by plaintiffs) to
7.11.1977 (date of purchase by defendant). The defendant produced tax receipts to show that the suit
property stood in the name of his vendor Damodar Rao till the date of sale in his favour.

[7] The trial court decreed the suit by judgment dated 31.12.1985. Relying on the two sale deeds in favour of
plaintiffs, the tax paid receipts and the oral evidence, it held that plaintiffs were in possession of the suit
property from the date of purchase and the defendant had interfered with their possession. The defendant
filed an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial court before the Addl. District Judge,
W arangal. The first appellate court held that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and the
plaintiffs had not made out, even prima facie, either title or possession over the suit property. It was of the
view that in the circumstances a mere suit for injunction was not maintainable, and at least when the
defendant filed his written statement denying the title of plaintiffs and setting up a clear and specific case of
title in himself, the plaintiffs ought to have amended the plaint to convert the suit into one for declaration
and injunction. Consequently it allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 9.12.1991 and dismissed
the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed SA No.29 of 1992.

[8] The High Court by its judgment dated 18.1.1999 allowed the second appeal and restored the judgment
and decree of the trial court. For this purpose, the High Court examined the evidence in detail and recorded
the following findings:

(i) There was an oral gift of the backyard portion (No.13/776) by way of 'pasupu kumkumam' by Damodar
Rao in favour of his sister Rukminibai i n the year 1961. As a gift of an immovable property in favour of a
daughter or sister by way of 'Pasupu Kumkuman' could be oral, the absence of any registered document
did not invalidate the gift.

(ii) Damodar Rao negotiated with plaintiffs, for sale of the two sites, on behalf of his sister Rukminibai,
representing that his sister was the owner thereof and attested the sale deeds executed by his sister
Rukminibai in favour of plaintiffs as a witness and identified her as the executant of the sale deeds before
the Sub-Registrar. Those acts of Damodar Rao supported the claim of Rukminibai that there was a oral
gift. Alternatively, even if there was no gift in favour of Rukminibai, and Damodar Rao was the owner, the
aforesaid acts of Damodar Rao showed that with his implied consent, Rukminibai represented to be the
ostensible owner of the suit property and transferred the same to plaintiffs for consideration. This
attracted the provision of section 41 of Transfer of P roperty Act, 1882 and therefore the transfers in favour
of plaintiffs was not voidable at the instance of Damodar Rao or his successor in interest on the ground
that Rukminibai was not the owner of the suit property.

The High Court consequently held that plaintiffs had established their title in regard to the two vacant
sites purchased by them and drew an inference that possession was presumed to be with them by
applying the principle of possession follows title. The High Court also held that it was not necessary to
plaintiffs to sue for declaration of title, as the question of title could be examined incidental to the
question of possession.

[9] The said judgment is challenged by the defendant, in this appeal by special leave, on the following
grounds :

(a) The suit for permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title was not maintainable on the
facts of the case. At all events, the High Court ought not to have recorded a finding of fact on a seriously
disputed and complicated issue of title, in a suit for a mere injunction.

(b) The first appellate court held that plaintiffs had neither established their title nor their possession and
their remedy was to file a suit for declaration and consequential relief. The High Court, in a second
a ppe a l, ought not to have reversed the said decision of the first appellate court, by the process of
examining and recording a finding on title, even though there was no issue regarding title.

(c) An oral gift by a brother to a sister was not permissible. At all events, such an oral gift even if
permissible, can be made only at the time of a partition or at the time of marriage of the sister, with a
view to making a provision for her. The High Court erred in holding that the there was a valid oral gift by
Damodar Rao in favour of Rukminibai.

(d) There was no plea in the plaint about the ostensible ownership of Rukminibai or about any acts of
 Damodar Rao which demonstrated the consent of Damodar Rao to such ostensible ownership. Nor was
there any plea about due and diligent enquiries by the plaintiffs regarding title before purchase. Therefore
the High Court erred in holding that the sales in favour of plaintiffs were protected by section 41 of the
Transfer of P roperty Act, 1882.

(e) In the absence of pleadings and an issue regarding title, the defendant had no opportunity to
effectively lead evidence on the question of title.

(f ) The High Court erred in equating plaintiffs' failure to produce title deeds of their vendor to defendant's
failure to produce the title deeds of his vendor. The High Court overlooked the fact that there was no
dispute that defendant's vendor Damodar Rao was the earlier owner of the suit property and it was for the
plaintiffs who had set up a case that their vendor Rukminibai derived title from Damodar Rao under an oral
gift, to prove the said claim.

[10] O n the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration in this appeal:

(i) W hat is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property?

(ii) W hether on the facts, plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction ?

(iii) W hether the High Court, in a second appeal under section 100 CP C, examine the factual question of
title which was not the subject matter of any issue and based on a finding thereon, reverse the decision
of the first appellate court?

(iv) W hat is the appropriate decision?

[11] The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary
to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. W e
may refer to them briefly.

11.1) W here a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered
or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect
his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction.
But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

11.2) W here the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a
suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot
seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

11.3) W here the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or
where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the
plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. W here the title
of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession,
necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.

[12] W e 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
cl o ud on the title to the property. O n 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 and a suit for injunction may be sufficient. W here the
plaintiff, believing that defendant is only a trespasser or a wrongful claimant without title, files a mere suit
f o r injunction, and in such a suit, the defendant discloses in his defence the details of the right or title
claimed by him, which raises a serious dispute or cloud over plaintiff's title, then there is a need for the
plaintiff, to amend the plaint and convert the suit into one for declaration. Alternatively, he may withdraw the
suit for bare injunction, with permission of the court to file a comprehensive suit for declaration and
injunction. He may file the suit for declaration with consequential relief, even after the suit for injunction is
dismissed, where the suit raised only the issue of possession and not any issue of title.
[13] In a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession,
the plaintiff will have to establish that as on the date of the suit he was in lawful possession of the suit
property and defendant tried to interfere or disturb such lawful possession. W here the property is a building or
building with appurtenant land, there may not be much difficulty in establishing possession. The plaintiff may
prove physical or lawful possession, either of himself or by him through his family members or agents or
lessees/licensees. Even in respect of a land without structures, as for example an agricultural land,
possession may be established with reference to the actual use and cultivation. The question of title is not in
issue in such a suit, though it may arise incidentally or collaterally.

[14] But what if the property is a vacant site, which is not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such
cases the principle is that possession follows title. 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. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere
injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to examine and determine the title as a
prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a situation, where the title is clear and simple, the court
may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though
the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of
fact and law, or where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was at issue, the
court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff
to the remedy of a full-fledged suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.

[15] There is some confusion as to in what circumstances the question of title will be directly and
substantially in issue, and in what circumstances the question of title will be collaterally and incidentally in
issue, in a suit for injunction simpliciter. In Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar U thirasomasundareswarar Temple
vs. Rajanga Asari , A I R 1965 Mad. 355, the Madras High Court considered an appeal arising from a suit for
possession and injunction. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had filed an earlier suit for injunction
which was dismissed, and therefore the plaintiff was precluded from agitating the issue of title in the
subsequent suit, being barred by the principle of res judicata. It was held that the earlier suit was only for an
injunction (to protect the standing crop on the land) and the averments in the plaint did not give rise to any
question necessitating denial of plaintiff's title by the defendant; and as the earlier suit was concerned only
with a possessory right and not title, the subsequent suit was not barred. There are several decisions taking a
similar view that in a suit for injunction, the question of title does not arise or would arise only incidentally or
collaterally, and therefore a subsequent suit for declaration of title would not be barred. O n the other hand, in
Sulochana Amma vs. Narayanan Nair , 1994 (2) SCC 14, this Court observed that a finding as to title given in
an earlier injunction suit, can operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for declaration of title. This was on
the premises that in some suits for injunction where a finding on possession solely depended upon a finding
on the issue of title, it could be said that the issue of title directly and substantially arose for consideration;
and when the same issue regarding title is put in issue, in a subsequent title suit between the parties, the
decision in the earlier suit for injunction may operate as res judicata.

This Court observed :

"Shri Sukumaran further contended that the remedy of injunction is an equitable relief and in equity, the
doctrine of res judicata cannot be extended to a decree of a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. W e
find no force in the contention. It is settled law that in a suit for injunction when title is in issue for the
purpose of granting injunction, the issue directly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties.
W hen the same issue is put in issue in a later suit based on title between the same parties or their
privies in a subsequent suit the decree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata."

This was reiterated in Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal , 2005 (6) SCC 202.

[16] This Court in Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. Vs. Musa Dadabhai U mmer , 2000 (3) SCC 350, noticed the
apparent conflict in the views expressed in Vanagiri and Sulochana Amma and clarified that the two decisions
did not express different views, but dealt with two different situations, as explained in Corpus Juris Secundum
(Vol.50, para 735, p.229):

"W here title to property is the basis of the right of possession, a decision on the question of possession
is res judicata on the question of title to the extent that adjudication of title was essential to the
judgment; but where the question of the right to possession was the only issue actually or necessarily
 involved, the judgment is not conclusive on the question of ownership or title."

In Vanagiri, the finding on possession did not rest on a finding on title and there was no issue regarding
title. The case related to an agricultural land and raising of crops and it was obviously possible to
establish by evidence who was actually using and cultivating the land and it was not necessary to examine
the title to find out who had deemed possession. If a finding on title was not necessary for deciding the
question of possession and grant of injunction, or where there was no issue regarding title, any decision
on title given incidentally and collaterally will not, operate as res judicata. O n the other hand, the
observation in Sulochana Amma that the finding on an issue relating to title in an earlier suit for
injunction may operate as res judicata, was with reference to a situation where the question of title was
directly and substantially in issue in a suit for injunction, that is, where a finding as to title was necessary
for grant of an injunction and a specific issue in regard to title had been raised. It is needless to point out
that a second suit would be barred, only when the facts relating to title are pleaded, when a issue is
raised in regard to title, and parties lead evidence on the issue of title and the court, instead of relegating
the parties to an action for declaration of title, decides upon the issue of title and that decision attains
finality. This happens only in rare cases. Be that as it may. W e are concerned in this case, not with a
question relating to res judicata, but a question whether a finding regarding title could be recorded in a
suit for injunction simpliciter, in the absence of pleadings and issue relating to title.

[17] To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is
as under :

(a) W here 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. W here 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. W here there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of
dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.

(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will
not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the
finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to
the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for
consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.

(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings
and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)].
W here the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title,
the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction.
Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact
and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for
declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.

(d) W here there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which
parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, the court may decide upon the
issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule
that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and
possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a
suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to
encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will
enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit,
depending upon the facts of the case.

[18] Rukminibai did not have any title deed to the suit property. The case of plaintiffs during arguments was
that the gift made in the year 1961, being by way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam' in favour of a sister by a brother,
could be oral and did not require a registered instrument. But the property allegedly gifted to Rukminibai was
not mutated in the name of Rukminibai in the municipal records, but continued in the name of Damodar Rao
even after 1961. Damodar Rao was a resident of W arangal and staying in the house adjoining the suit
property. Rukminibai was a resident of Hyderabad. Therefore, as on the date of sales in favour of the
plaintiffs 9.12.1968, Rukminibai had neither any title deed nor actual possession. Nor was the property
mutated in her name in the municipal records. The tax paid receipts produced by the plaintiffs related to a
period subsequent to the execution of the sale deeds by Rukminibai in their favour and subsequent to the
sale by Damodar Rao in favour of defendant. O n the other hand, the suit property was sold in favour of the
defendant by Damodar Rao who was shown as registered owner in the municipal records and who even
according to the plaintiffs was the original owner of the property.

[19] The first appellate court found that the evidence of plaintiffs and their witnesses as to the title of
plaintiffs' vendor Rukminibai was sketchy and inconsistent. It referred to three versions as to how Rukminibai
got the property. The first version (as per P W 1) was that the suit property belonged to Rukminibai's father
and he had given it to his daughter Rukminibai by way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam'. The second version (as per
P W 2) was that after the death of Rukminibai's father, there was an oral partition between K. V. Damodar Rao
and Rukminibai and at that partition, the suit property was allotted to Rukminibai. But both P W 1 and P W 2
admitted that they did not make any enquiry with Rukminibai about her title. The third version (as per P W 4 -
Rukminibai) was that Damodar Rao made an oral gift of the plot in her favour by way of 'Pasupu Kumkumam'
in the year 1961. She admitted that there was no special occasion for gifting the plot to her in the year 1961,
as she was married long prior to 1961.

[20] The suit sites were vacant plots. Both sides admitted that Damodar Rao was the original owner and that
entire property stood in his name. The defendant claims title through Damodar Rao. The plaintiffs claim title
through Rukminibai who neither has any deed of title nor any document in support of title or possession.
Admittedly, there was no mutation in her name. This means that plaintiffs claim title through someone who
claimed to be owner in pursuance of an oral gift in the year 1961 without the property being mutated in her
name, whereas the defendant claims title from the person who was admittedly the original owner who was
registered as owner in the revenue records. Necessarily, therefore, prima facie it has to be held that
defendant had made out possession following title.

[21] The plaintiffs and their witnesses gave evidence to the effect that Damodar Rao represented that his
sister Rukminibai was the owner of the plot and negotiated for sale of the several portions thereof in favour
o f plaintiffs and P W 3, and that Damodar Rao had attested the sale deeds in their favour and identified his
sister as the vendor executant before the Sub-Registrar, at the time of registration of the sale deeds. It is no
doubt true that if that was the position, it is possible for them to contend that having regard to section 41 of
Transfer of P roperty Act, when the ostensible owner Rukminibai sold the property with the implied consent of
Damodar Rao, the defendant as a transferee from Damodar Rao could not contend that the sales were not
valid. They also alleged that defendant was a close relative of Damodar Rao and the sale in favour of
defendant was only nominal, intended to defeat their title. But Damodar Rao in his evidence denied having
made the oral gift or having attested the sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs. He also denied having identified
his sister at the time of registration of the sale deeds. W hether Rukminibai's evidence and other plaintiffs'
witnesses should be believed or whether evidence of Damodar Rao should be believed on the question of
title, can be examined only when there are necessary pleadings and an issue regarding title. Further, where
title of plaintiffs is disputed and claim for possession is purely based on title, and the plaintiffs have to rely
on various principles of law relating to ostensible ownership and section 41 of T P Act, validity of a oral gift by
w a y of 'pasupu kumkum' under Hindu Law, estoppel and acquiescence, to put forth a case of title, such
complicated questions could properly be examined only in a title suit, that is a suit for declaration and
consequential reliefs, and not in a suit for an injunction simpliciter.

[22] The High Court formulated the following as substantial questions of law:

"(i) W hether the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title is
maintainable under law?

(ii) W hether the acts and deeds of Damodar Rao (DW -2) made the plaintiffs to believe that Rukminibai is
the ostensible owner of the suit property and thus made them to purchase the suit property for valid
consideration and, therefore, the provisions under Section 41 of the Transfer of P roperty Act are attracted
and as such DW -2 could not pass on a better title to the defendant under Ex.B-1?

(iii) W hether the alleged oral gift of the suit property in favour of Rukminibai by DW 2 towards
pasupukumkum is legal, valid and binding on DW 2 though effected in contravention of the provisions
under Section 123 of the Transfer of P roperty Act?"
 Having regard to the pleadings and issues, only the first question formulated by the High Court can be
said to arise for its consideration in the second appeal. The second and third questions did not arise at
all, as we will presently demonstrate.

[23] The second question of law formulated by the High Court is a mixed question of fact and law, that is
whether the factual ingredients necessary to claim the benefit of section 41 of the Transfer of P roperty Act
were made out by plaintiffs. To attract the benefit of section 41 of T P Act, the plaintiffs had to specifically
plead the averments necessary to make out a case under section 41 of the T.P. Act and claim the benefit or
protection under that section. The averments to be pleaded were :

(a) that Rukminibai was the ostensible owner of the property with the express or implied consent of
Damodar Rao;

(b) that the plaintiffs after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor or Rukminibai had the
power to make the transfer, had acted in good faith in purchasing the sites for valid consideration; and

(c) that therefore, the transfer in favour of plaintiffs by Rukminibai was not voidable at the instance of
Damodar Rao or any one claiming through him.

These pleas were not made in the plaint. W hen these were not pleaded, the question of defendant
denying or traversing them did not arise. In the absence of any pleadings and issue, it is
ununderstandable how a question of law relating to section 41 of T P Act could be formulated by the High
Court.

[24] The third question of law formulated by the High Court, is also a mixed question of fact and law firstly
whether there was an oral gift and secondly whether the alleged oral gift was valid. Here again, there was no
averment in the plaint in respect of any gift, oral or otherwise, by Damodar Rao in favour of Rukminibai or
about its validity. Consequently there was no opportunity to the defendant to deny the oral gift in his written
statement.

There was no issue on this aspect also. Therefore, this question, which could not have been considered in
the suit, could not also have been considered in the second appeal.

[25] The High Court, in the absence of pleadings and issues, formulated in a second appeal arising from a
suit for bare injunction, questions of law unrelated to the pleadings and issues, presumably because some
evidence was led and some arguments were advanced on those aspects. The only averment in the plaint that
plaintiffs were the owners of the suit property having purchased the same under sale deeds dated 9.12.1968,
did not enable the court, much less a High Court in second appeal, to hold a roving enquiry into an oral gift
and its validity or validation of ostensible title under section 41 of T P Act. No amount of evidence or
arguments can be looked into or considered in the absence of pleadings and issues, is a proposition that is
too well settled.

[26] The High Court while reversing the decision of the first appellate court, examined various aspects
relating to title and recorded findings relating to title. It held that gifting a property to a daughter or sister by
way o f 'Pasupu Kumkumam", could be done orally and did not require a registered instrument. Even though
there was no independence evidence of oral gift except the assertion to Rukminibai (which was denied by
Damodar Rao), the High Court, held that there was an oral gift in her favour. It also accepted the evidence of
P W 3 and P W 5 and plaintiffs, that Damodar Rao negotiated for the sale of the plots representing that they
belonged to his sister Rukminibai and that he attested the sale deeds as a witness and identified the
Rukminibai as the executant before the Sub-Registrar and therefore, section 41 of T P Act came to the aid of
plaintiffs and Damodar Rao was estopped from denying the title of his sister. The High Court in a second
appeal arising from a suit for an injunction, could not have recorded such findings, in the absence of pleadings
and issue regarding title.

[27] W e are therefore of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 100 CP C, firstly
in re-examining questions of fact, secondly by going into the questions which were not pleaded and which
were not the subject matter of any issue, thirdly by formulating questions of law which did not arise in the
second appeal, and lastly, by interfering with the well reasoned judgment of the first appellate court which
held that the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for declaration.
[28] W e are conscious of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1978 and driving the plaintiffs to a fresh
round of litigation after three decades would cause hardship to them. But the scope of civil cases are
circumscribed by the limitations placed by the rules of pleadings, nature of relief claimed and the court fee
paid. The predicament of plaintiffs, was brought upon themselves, by failing to convert the suit to one for
declaration even when the written statement was filed, and by not seeking amendment of issues to include
an issue on the question of title. In the absence of a prayer of declaration of title and an issue regarding
title, let alone the pleadings required for a declaration of title, the parties cannot be said to have an
opportunity to have a full-fledged adjudication regarding title.

[29] W e, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the suit.
Nothing stated herein or by the courts below shall b e construed a s expression of any opinion regarding title,
in any future suit for declaration and consequential reliefs that may be filed by the Appellants, in accordance
with law. Parties to bear their respective costs.