The Apex Court expounded that once the dispute with respect to title is settled against the plaintiff, a suit for permanent injunction isn’t maintainable against the true owner of the property.
The division bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna stated that when the suit is held to be barred by limitation, the prayer for a consequential relief like permanent injunction shall also be barred by limitation.
The facts of the case were that the trial court had declined the relief of cancellation of the sale deed and declaration but still granted permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court dismissed defendant's appeal. Even the High Court dismissed the second appeal and held that the relief of permanent injunction can be said to be substantive relief and not a consequential relief and that the trial court was justified in granting the permanent injunction in favour of the original plaintiff.
The Apex Court observed that the main reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the suit were cancellation of the sale deed and thus the prayer of permanent injunction shall be a consequential relief.
The bench clarified, "Therefore, the title to the property was the basis of the relief of possession. If that be so, in the present case, the relief for permanent injunction can be said to be a consequential relief and not a substantive relief as observed and held by the High Court. "
Case: Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (D) v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (D)
Date: 3rd March 2022
Bench: Justice MR Shah, Justice BV Nagarathna
Read the Judgement:
Picture Source :
