Specific Relief – Perpetual injunction – Maintainability when cloud alleged – Principles reiterated – Application of Anathula Sudhakar, (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Reaffirmed that when plaintiff has clear title and possession, mere vexatious challenge cannot compel declaratory suit.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Concurrent findings as to title and possession – No substantial question of law – Interference not warranted – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Perpetual injunction – Suit for bare injunction – Maintainability – Alleged cloud over title – Principles in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, restated and applied – Where plaintiff establishes title by registered documents and is in settled possession, and the rival claim is either unproved or vexatious, plaintiff is not required to institute declaratory suit merely because a third party sets up a Will; injunction simpliciter maintainable.

Evidence Act, 1872 – Title to immovable property – Competing claim based on Will – Burden of proof – When plaintiff’s title traced through registered sale deeds and settlement is proved and possession stands established, the burden shifts to defendants to prove a better title; unproved Will and absence of possession render defence ineffective – Revenue cancellation of pattadar passbook does not displace civil court’s findings on title.

Land laws – Pattadar passbook / title deed – Cancellation by revenue authorities – Effect – Such cancellation is an administrative act and does not, by itself, extinguish civil title or dislodge a registered chain of title; civil court entitled to ignore revenue entries when they contradict proved title.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.100 – Second Appeal – Scope – Concurrent findings on title and possession – Suit for perpetual injunction – Maintainability – When cloud over title alleged – Distinction between injunction simpliciter and declaration – Held, where plaintiff established title through registered documents and proved possession, and defendants failed to substantiate competing title or establish possession, injunction suit maintainable – Court may adjudicate title in injunction suit when pleadings and evidence are simple and straightforward and no complicated question arises – No substantial question of law arises warranting interference – Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage.

Specific Relief – Perpetual injunction – Maintainability when cloud alleged – Principles reiterated – Application of Anathula Sudhakar, (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Reaffirmed that when plaintiff has clear title and possession, mere vexatious challenge cannot compel declaratory suit.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

The suit originated as one for perpetual injunction where the plaintiff asserted lawful title and possession. Title was traced through two registered sale deeds of 1964 and 1978, followed by a registered gift deed dated 02.11.2004. Possession was corroborated by revenue records, subsequent alienation of part land by plaintiff under registered deed Ex.A8, and judicial observations in prior litigation (I.A.No.449/2006 in O.S.No.135/2006) recognising her possession.

The defendants resisted on the strength of a Will dated 06.12.1974 allegedly executed in favour of the vendor from whom defendant No.2 claimed purchase. The trial court, on evidence—including the deposition of the vendor (DW3)—concluded that title was neither proved nor possession demonstrated by the defendants. Judgments of both courts below thus contained concurrent findings of fact that (i) plaintiff’s mother had valid title; (ii) gift deed validly vested title in plaintiff; and (iii) plaintiff was in possession at suit filing.

The appellants contended that cancellation of pattadar passbook by revenue authority negated plaintiff’s title and that suit for injunction simpliciter was not maintainable when a cloud over title was asserted.

The High Court relied on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594, which delineates when an injunction suit is maintainable, reiterating that where plaintiff has clear title and possession, frivolous or speculative claims cannot compel recourse to declaratory suits. Both courts below found title and possession established; hence suit was maintainable.

On the Section 100 CPC dimension, the Court referred to Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann, (2001) 4 SCC 262 and Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, AIR 2009 SC 1481, reaffirming the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals—interference only if concurrent findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to settled principles. None of those conditions existed.

The High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, findings were based on appreciation of evidence, and no perversity existed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.