Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a suit property being Final Plot No.129 of Town Planning Scheme No.22, Paldi, Ahmedabad, admeasuring 1204 square yards after exclusion of excess vacant land. The appellants, as plaintiffs, claimed possession and rights through a chain of agreements culminating in an agreement to sell dated 12.11.1991 executed by the heirs of Babulal Jayantilal Raval, proprietor of Yogesh and Company, in their favour with N. Raval Marriage Dome as confirming party. They asserted continuous possession since 1991, obtaining utility connections and successfully resisting demolition by the Municipal Corporation in Civil Suit No.458 of 1998. In 2011, they filed Civil Suit No.2211 of 2011 seeking injunction against the respondents to prevent interference and alienation of the property. The respondents contested the suit, denying any transfer of title, alleging the documents were forged, and pleading non-joinder of parties. The trial court, after framing issues, held that the defendants were not parties to the agreement of 12.11.1991, necessary parties were not joined, and the suit was not maintainable without a title deed. It partly affirmed the plaintiffs' possession but dismissed the suit on 29.09.2025. The appellants challenged this judgment and decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the trial court erroneously presumed the unregistered agreement of 31.05.1968 was unreliable solely because it was not produced. The High Court heard the appeal and the oral arguments of the appellants' senior counsel, but the final appellate decision is not recorded in the available extract. The case thus presented the question whether a suit for injunction based on long possession and agreements could survive when the defendants were not privy to those agreements and no title had been perfected.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suit for Injunction - Maintainability without Title - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain interference with possession based on an agreement to sell and a possession deed. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the defendants were not parties to the agreement dated 12.11.1991 and the necessary parties were not joined. The court held that in absence of any title deed, the suit for injunction was not maintainable. (Paras 2.1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the defendants were not parties to the agreement dated 12.11.1991 and that the suit was not maintainable in absence of a title deed.
Law Points
- Suit for injunction without title is not maintainable
- possession alone may not entitle relief without title
- non-joinder of necessary parties fatal to suit
