Must a plaintiff always seek a declaration of title before he can obtain a bare injunction?

Paragraph 15The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that in the case of Anathula Sudhakar /v/ P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs & Ors. reported in 2009-2 Law Weekly 546, it is held in paragraph No.17 as follows: ''17.To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under : (a)Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.''

Paragraph 22So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that unless the relief of declaration is sought, when there is a dispute over the title of the plaintiff, the suit for injunction simplicitor and reliance on rulings are not acceptable is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Because this Court is of the considered view that both parties have not proved title over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to injunction if he proves his settled possession. A careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.29 makes it clear that the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property by producing revenue records, whereas the defendants have not proved their possession by way of paying kist towards the suit property. The exhibits produced by the defendants only relate to purchase and othi in respect of part of the land in suit survey number and the defendants have not proved that their documents consist of the suit property. It is the repeated well settled position that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction protecting his possession on the date of the plaint, even if he is deemed to be a trespasser. In this case, the plaintiff has clearly proved his settled possession of the suit property. It is not the case of the defendants that they are co-owners and they have also not proved title over the suit property, as already discussed above. The first Appellate Court erred in holding that mere possession is not sufficient to grant an injunction when the documents show that there is no proof of title to the suit property by both. The first Appellate Court has failed to consider the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both. This Court holds that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is proved by him as correctly decided by the Trial Court. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. Thus, this second appeal succeeds.