Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran set aside an injunction that had restrained interference with possession of disputed family property, holding that the plaintiff had not established actual possession or sought recovery despite relying on a proved Will. The Court observed that mere proof of the Will did not justify an injunction when possession was admitted to be with the other party. While upholding a restraint on alienation or encumbrance of the property, the Bench permitted both sides to file fresh proceedings within three months to seek declaration of title or recovery of possession.

The matter arose from a civil dispute concerning ownership and possession of a property measuring 1.74½ acres. The respondent filed a suit seeking injunctions to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the property and to prevent interference with her peaceful possession. She asserted absolute ownership over half the property on the basis of a Will dated 30 September 1985, allegedly executed by her father, who had bequeathed the property equally to her and one brother.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Right To Seek Arbitration Not Lost Despite Inoperable Clause Under Statutory Amendment; Dispute Referred To Delhi International Arbitration Centre

The defendant, her brother, contested the claim, stating that he occupied the property as a co-owner, not a tenant, and that there had been an earlier division of properties in 1983 during their father’s lifetime. The trial court found the Will proved and decreed injunctions in favour of the plaintiff. The appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the property was ancestral and the testator lacked authority to execute the Will. On second appeal, the High Court restored the trial court’s findings, declaring the father’s ownership absolute and the Will duly proved.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants, legal heirs of the defendant, argued that the plaintiff admitted possession was with the defendant and that an injunction simpliciter could not be granted without seeking declaration of title or recovery of possession. The respondent maintained that two different properties were involved and the disputed one was part of the father’s estate. The Supreme Court examined pleadings and evidence, including previous suits and oral statements, to determine the nature of possession and the validity of the relief granted.

The Bench recorded that “the plaintiff’s own admission was that the defendant was in possession of the property.” It noted that the plaintiff’s pleadings and testimony consistently indicated that the defendant and another brother were occupying portions of the property. The Court stated that “though the plaintiff did not have possession, she had not claimed recovery of possession,” and that an injunction could not be granted merely on the strength of a proved Will without establishing actual possession.

It was observed that “while asserting a Will and title on its strength, there should have been a declaration of title sought, especially when the contention of the defendant was that he came into the property as a co-owner and then occupies it with absolute rights.” The Court found the plaint “ill-drafted” and held that the trial court and High Court erred in granting an injunction against interference with possession.

The Bench further recorded that “the ‘Will’ is proved but the right of the testator to bequeath the property is still under a cloud.” It emphasized that possession followed title only when the plaintiff established ownership and occupancy, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the Court determined that the injunction restraining interference with possession could not stand.

However, the Court stated that “the injunction against alienation is perfectly in order since the defendant too has not sought for a declaration of title.” It concluded that the circumstances created a stalemate, as ownership had not been conclusively determined in favour of either party, and left scope for further proceedings to resolve title and possession issues.

The Court directed that the injunction restraining interference with possession granted by the lower courts could not be sustained, as possession was admitted to be with the defendant. It stated that “the injunction against alienation is perfectly in order since the defendant too has not sought for a declaration of title.”

Also Read: [Arbitration Act] Rajasthan High Court Holds Section 11 Application Maintainable Without Notice Under Section 21 If Respondents Were Aware of Dispute, Appoints Sole Arbitrator

It held: “We reserve liberty to either of the parties to seek declaration of title and consequential possession or recovery of possession, if they desire, which proceedings will be instituted within a period of three months from today.”

“If a fresh proceeding is initiated then the same would be considered afresh untrammelled by the findings in the present proceedings, which shall not govern the rights of the parties.” Further, it imposed a continuing restraint stating that “no alienation shall be made by both parties or the subject property encumbered.”

The appeal was accordingly disposed of with these directions, and all pending applications stood closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Mr. Gopal Bhosale, Adv. Ms. Sangita Bhosale, Adv. Mr. Ali Rauf Rahim, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Ameet Kr Deshpande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Vibhor Jain, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.

Case Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1197
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No.18943 of 2024
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice K. Vinod Chandran