Case Note & Summary
This Regular Second Appeal arose out of an original suit for permanent injunction in a property dispute. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of the suit property and sought to restrain the defendants from interfering. The defendants denied the plaintiff’s title and possession, set up their own title through purchase, and contended that the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal and decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court admitted the appeal and subsequently framed two substantial questions of law: whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court based on evidence without foundational pleadings, and whether a bare injunction suit could be decreed when title and identity were seriously disputed. The arguments of the appellants focused on the absence of pleadings regarding acquisition of title, reliance by the first appellate court on documents not pleaded, and the necessity of seeking declaration and possession given the cloud over title. The respondents opposed the framing of additional substantial questions of law, arguing the proviso to Section 100(5) CPC does not expand the scope of the main section. The final decision of the High Court is not contained in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Pleadings and Evidence – Plaintiff must plead source of title; evidence beyond pleadings cannot form basis for decree – First appellate court relied on documents not pleaded, leading to alleged perversity – (Paras 14-15)
B) Civil Procedure – Suit for Bare Injunction – Maintainability – When defendants set up title and dispute plaintiff’s possession, identity of property, suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration and possession – First appellate court’s decree challenged on this ground – (Paras 8, 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court decree based on evidence without foundation in pleadings, and whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable when defendants have specifically disputed the title/ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property as well as its identity
Law Points
- Suit for bare injunction not maintainable when title and possession are seriously disputed
- evidence without pleadings cannot be relied upon
- first appellate court must not reverse trial court finding without proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence
- Section 100 CPC substantial question of law
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (12) 4
Sri Shivakumar Kalloor for appellants, Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande for respondent
Ch. Gnyaneshwar, Mrs. M. Vanitha, Y. Narendra Reddy, Ch. Manohar Reddy, Y. Ravindra Reddy, B. Srinivas Reddy
Ramgopal (deceased) through LRs Susheela Devi and Madhusudhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Regular Second Appeal arising out of a suit for permanent injunction in a property dispute.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the first appellate court's decree and restore the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
Filing Reason
First appellate court reversed trial court's dismissal and decreed the suit for injunction; appellants contended that the first appellate court relied on evidence not founded in pleadings and that the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable given serious title and identity disputes.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed suit on 14.08.2007; First Appellate Court allowed appeal and decreed suit on 11.09.2007.
Issues
Whether the first appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court decree based on evidence to which there was no foundation in the pleadings.
Whether the first appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit for bare injunction when the defendants specifically disputed the title/ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property as well as its identity.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the plaintiff failed to plead source of title, possession not proved, suit for bare injunction not maintainable when title and possession seriously disputed, first appellate court erroneously relied on evidence beyond pleadings.
Respondent argued that additional substantial question of law could not be framed under proviso to Section 100(5) CPC as it expands the scope of the main section, and that the appeal involved no substantial questions of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, decreed the suit.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court based on the evidence to which there was no foundation in the pleadings?
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed O.S.No.344/2001 for permanent injunction. Trial Court dismissed suit on 14.08.2007. Plaintiff appealed in R.A.No.125/2007. First Appellate Court allowed appeal on 11.09.2007, decreed suit. Defendants filed RSA No.3119/2007. High Court admitted appeal on 19.08.2008, framing substantial question of law. Additional question framed on 11.11.2021. During pendency, original plaintiff died, LRs brought on record.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order 41 Rule 27
