The Supreme Court held that even if a Will is proved, a prayer for mere injunction without seeking declaration of title is unsustainable when the plaintiff admits the defendant is in possession. The Court clarified that injunction against alienation is maintainable, but injunction against interference with possession requires a declaration of title and a prayer for recovery.
Facts Of The Case:
The dispute centered on a property originally owned by Rangaswamy Naidu. His daughter, Rajammal (respondent-plaintiff), filed a suit against her brother, Munuswamy (original defendant), seeking an injunction to restrain him from alienating the property and from interfering with her peaceful possession. She claimed absolute title under a Will dated 30.09.1985, by which her father had allegedly bequeathed the property equally to her and another brother, Govindarajan. The plaintiff contended that Munuswamy was merely a tenant. Munuswamy, however, claimed to be a co-owner, asserting the property was ancestral and had been partitioned between him and Govindarajan during their father’s lifetime. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of Rajammal based on the proved Will. The first appellate court reversed this, holding the property was ancestral and the testator had no right to bequeath it via Will. The High Court, in second appeal, restored the trial court’s decree, upholding the Will and finding title and possession in favour of Rajammal. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the legal heirs of Munuswamy argued the suit for simple injunction was not maintainable as the plaintiff herself admitted the defendant was in possession and had not sought a declaration of title.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case commenced with the plaintiff-respondent, Rajammal, filing an original suit for a simple injunction against her brother, Munuswamy, in the trial court. The trial court decreed the suit in her favour, accepting the validity of the Will. On first appeal by the defendant, the appellate court reversed the decree, holding the property was ancestral and the Will invalid. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which formulated substantial questions of law, allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate court’s order, and restored the trial court’s decree. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the original defendant (the appellants) approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition, which was granted. The Supreme Court, in its final judgment, modified the High Court’s order, upholding only the injunction against alienation and granting liberty to both parties to file a fresh suit for declaration of title, thereby disposing of the appeal.
READ ALSO:How a Defective Arbitration Clause & the Pandemic Shaped a Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Limitation
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made key observations on the legal sustainability of the suit. It noted that the Will, though proved, did not conclusively establish the testator’s right to bequeath the property, leaving the title under a cloud. Crucially, the Court observed that the plaintiff had consistently admitted the defendant was in possession of the suit property. Given this admission and the defendant’s counter-claim of co-ownership, the Court held that a mere suit for injunction was not maintainable. The plaintiff ought to have sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession. Consequently, the injunction restraining interference with peaceful enjoyment was found impermissible. However, the injunction against alienating the property was upheld, as neither party had a declared title. The Court thus created a stalemate, reserving liberty for either side to initiate fresh proceedings for declaration and consequential reliefs.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the injunction against the alienation or encumbrance of the suit property, preventing any sale or transfer by either party. However, it set aside the injunction that restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession, as the plaintiff had admitted the defendant was in possession and had not sought a declaration of title or recovery of possession. The Court found the suit for a simple injunction unsustainable under these circumstances. To break the stalemate on ownership, the judgment reserved liberty for both parties to institute fresh proceedings within three months to seek a declaration of their title and consequential reliefs like possession. These future proceedings are to be considered afresh, uninfluenced by the findings in the present case.
Case Details:
Case Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. vs. D. Rajammal Citation: 2025 INSC 1197 Appeal Number: (arising from Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18943 of 2024) Date of Judgment: October 07, 2025 Judges/Justices: Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Download The Judgement Here