Friday, January 23, 2026

When title is seriously disputed and under cloud, a suit for bare permanent injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title. In injunction suits, the burden lies entirely on the plaintiff to prove lawful possession as on the date of suit. Sale deed and pattadar passbook alone are insufficient to establish possession of agricultural land in the absence of revenue adangals. Courts below commit perversity when they ignore material admissions and documentary evidence. Wrong casting of burden of proof constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. Concurrent findings based on misreading or non-consideration of evidence are open to interference in second appeal.

advocatemmmohan

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 100 — Second Appeal

Scope of interference — Concurrent findings — Exceptions.

Though ordinarily the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, such findings are liable to be interfered with in second appeal where:

(i) material evidence is ignored,
(ii) findings are based on no evidence or mis-reading of documentary evidence, or
(iii) burden of proof is wrongly cast.

(Paras 14–15, 30–31)

Suit for Permanent Injunction — Maintainability

Bare injunction — Cloud over title — Declaration mandatory.

Where there exists a serious dispute regarding title and the plaintiff’s title is under cloud, a mere suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title.
(Paras 25, 32)

Injunction simpliciter — Principles

A suit for injunction simpliciter is maintainable only where:

• plaintiff is in lawful possession, and
• defendant fails to establish a better title.

A person in wrongful or doubtful possession is not entitled to injunction against the true owner.
(Paras 20–21)

Title dispute — Husband and wife vendors — Complicated questions of law

Where:

• plaintiff’s vendor and defendant’s vendor are husband and wife,
• both claim title through the same original owner, and
• competing registered sale deeds exist,

the dispute involves complicated questions of fact and law, requiring adjudication through a comprehensive declaratory suit.
(Paras 17, 25)

Burden of proof — Injunction suit

In a suit for permanent injunction, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove lawful possession as on the date of suit.
The burden cannot be shifted on the defendant to prove his possession.
(Paras 21, 27)

Possession — Proof — Revenue records

Possession of agricultural land must be established by reliable evidence such as:

• revenue adangals,
• land revenue receipts, or
• proof of actual cultivation.

Mere production of sale deed, pattadar passbook or title deed is not conclusive proof of possession.
(Paras 21–24, 26)

Revenue entries — Evidentiary value

Mutation entries and pattadar passbooks only enable payment of land revenue and do not, by themselves, establish title or possession.
(Para 23)

Failure to produce revenue adangals — Adverse inference

Where plaintiffs claim cultivation of wet land but fail to produce revenue adangals or land revenue receipts, adverse inference must be drawn against their claim of possession.
(Paras 22–24)

Trial Court — Framing of issues

Failure of the trial court to frame an issue regarding maintainability of suit for bare injunction, despite specific plea of title dispute in the written statement, vitiates the judgment.
(Para 25(iv))

First Appellate Court — Error of law

First appellate court committed perversity by:

• ignoring material documentary evidence,
• not considering existence of cloud over title, and
• wrongly shifting burden of proof on the defendant.

Such findings are legally unsustainable.
(Paras 26–31)

Admissions — Evidentiary value

Admissions of plaintiff’s vendor in cross-examination regarding:

• lack of ancestral property, and
• relationship with defendant’s vendor,

are material admissions and cannot be ignored.
(Paras 17–18)

Competing sale deeds — Effect

Where plaintiff’s vendor had no title and admitted absence of ancestral property, sale deed executed by such vendor does not confer valid title.
(Paras 17, 21, 25)

Second Appeal — Substantial question of law

Substantial question of law arises where courts below decree a suit for bare injunction despite:

• serious title dispute,
• defective source of title, and
• absence of proof of possession.

(Paras 12, 25–32)

RATIO DECIDENDI

When title is seriously disputed and under cloud, a suit for bare permanent injunction is not maintainable without declaration of title.
In injunction suits, the burden lies entirely on the plaintiff to prove lawful possession as on the date of suit.
Sale deed and pattadar passbook alone are insufficient to establish possession of agricultural land in the absence of revenue adangals.
Courts below commit perversity when they ignore material admissions and documentary evidence.
Wrong casting of burden of proof constitutes a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
Concurrent findings based on misreading or non-consideration of evidence are open to interference in second appeal.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN