Case Note & Summary
Background: This appeal by special leave arose from an order of a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench dated January 20, 1993 in M.A. No.337/91. The appellant Smt. Rajnibai @ Mannubai had filed a suit for declaration of prescriptive title to certain property, claiming to have acquired title by adverse possession from 1974. Along with the suit, the appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent Smt. Kamla Devi and others from interfering with her possession pending disposal of the suit. Facts: The trial court granted the temporary injunction in favour of the appellant. On appeal, the High Court reversed the trial court's order and held that the application for interim injunction was not maintainable. The High Court reasoned that when there was no dispute as to the corporeal right in litigation, a declaratory suit concerned only a right to the property but not the right itself; that Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC could be availed of only when the property was in danger of being wasted, damaged or otherwise dealt with; and that in a simple declaratory suit without any consequential relief, there could be no dispute as regards the property because the dispute was about the entitlement to the right sought in respect of the property. Consequently, the High Court concluded that grant of interim injunction was beyond the jurisdiction of the court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Legal Issues: The core question before the Supreme Court was whether a court has power under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant an ad interim injunction pending suit in a suit for declaration of title simpliciter, especially when the plaintiff is in possession and apprehends threat to that possession. A related issue was whether the inherent power under Section 151 CPC could be invoked to protect the rights of the parties pending the suit. Arguments: The appellant contended that the High Court had erred in holding the injunction application not maintainable. The respondent's side presumably supported the High Court's reasoning that in a simple declaratory suit without consequential relief, the dispute was about entitlement to the right and not about the property itself, so no injunction could be granted. The judgment does not detail extensive oral arguments but records that counsel on both sides were heard. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court held that the view expressed by the High Court was not correct in law. It observed that in a suit for declaration of title simpliciter, the court has power under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, or even under Section 151 CPC, to grant ad interim injunction pending suit. The Court noted that the appellant was admittedly in possession of the property and had apprehended threat to her possession. It reasoned that when a party seeks to protect possession, the court must consider whether protection is to be given pending the suit, provided the party is otherwise entitled according to law. The Court further clarified that merely because there is no dispute as regards the corporeal right to the property, it does not necessarily follow that the party is not entitled to avail the remedy under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Additionally, the Court reiterated the settled law that under Section 151 CPC, the court has inherent power to protect the rights of the parties pending the suit. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court found the High Court's view that the application itself was not maintainable to be clearly illegal and erroneous. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was maintainable. The matter was remitted to the High Court to consider the case on merits and dispose of it according to law, as the High Court had not considered the case on merits. The Court directed that status quo shall continue till the disposal of the appeal in the High Court. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Maintainability in Declaratory Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The High Court held that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was not maintainable in a simple declaratory suit without consequential relief, on the ground that there was no dispute as to corporeal right to property but only as to entitlement to the right. The Supreme Court reversed this view and held that in a suit for declaration of title simpliciter, the court has power under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad interim injunction pending suit. It further held that since the appellant was admittedly in possession and apprehended threat to possession, the court must consider whether protection is to be given on merits; the matter was remitted to the High Court with status quo to continue (Paras Not mentioned). B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Protection of Rights Pending Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151 - The Supreme Court reiterated that even otherwise, it is settled law that under Section 151 CPC, the court has inherent power to protect the rights of the parties pending the suit. This inherent power could also be invoked to grant ad interim injunction in a declaratory suit where the plaintiff is in possession and seeks protection from threatened interference; Held that the High Court's view that the application itself was not maintainable was clearly illegal and erroneous (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a court can grant temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC or Section 151 CPC in a suit for declaration of title simpliciter, when the plaintiff is in possession and apprehends threat to possession, and the High Court held the application not maintainable on the ground that the dispute was about entitlement to the right and not about the property itself.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of High Court set aside; application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC held maintainable; matter remitted to High Court to consider case on merits and dispose according to law; status quo to continue till disposal of appeal in High Court; no costs.
Law Points
- Court has power under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant ad interim injunction pending suit even in a suit for declaration of title simpliciter
- Inherent power under Section 151 CPC to protect rights of parties pending suit
- Merely because there is no dispute as regards corporeal right to property
- it does not necessarily follow that the party is not entitled to remedy under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is maintainable in a declaratory suit without consequential relief if plaintiff in possession and apprehends threat
