Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession for 40 years, paying kist, while the defendant contested, asserting possession and alleging that the plaintiff was litigating on behalf of a third party. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove possession. The first appellate court reversed this, relying on kist receipts to conclude the plaintiff was in possession. The defendant appealed to the High Court, which framed a substantial question of law on whether a suit for injunction without a declaration prayer is maintainable when title is disputed, and set aside the first appellate court's judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issues involved the maintainability of a suit for bare injunction without a declaration and the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a second appeal. The appellant argued that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and that the substantial question of law was unsustainable, while the respondent sought to sustain the High Court's judgment based on possession claims. The Supreme Court analyzed the principles, noting that in a suit for bare injunction, a declaratory relief is not always necessary, and the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law without factual reappreciation. The court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the factual findings of the lower appellate court and that the framed question was not sustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the first appellate court's judgment, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC - The High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to substantial questions of law and cannot involve reappreciation of evidence on factual aspects - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence, which is impermissible under Section 100 CPC - Held that the High Court should not have interfered with the factual findings of the lower appellate court, which is the last court for appreciation of facts (Paras 10-12). B) Property Law - Suit for Injunction - Maintainability Without Declaration - In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff need not always seek declaratory relief even when title is disputed - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court framed a substantial question of law regarding the maintainability of the suit without a declaration prayer - The Supreme Court held that the law is well settled that such a suit is maintainable, and the High Court's framing of the question was unsustainable (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit without the prayer for declaration is maintainable when especially the title of the plaintiff is disputed
Final Decision
Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the lower appellate court, allowing the appeal
Law Points
- In a suit for bare injunction
- the plaintiff need not always seek declaratory relief
- the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 is limited to substantial questions of law and cannot involve reappreciation of evidence on factual aspects
- the lower appellate court is the final court for appreciation of facts
