Who succeeds in a suit for injunction where neither side proves title to the property?

Paragraph 21It is a settled position of law that the litigant is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his settled possession over the property. It is also a settled position that when both the plaintiff and the defendant have not proved their title and the defendant has not proved his superior title while denying the title of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction for his established possession. The Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has clearly held in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs. vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr. in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT. “When the defendant fails in proving his title to the suit land the plaintiff can succeed in securing a decree for possession on the basis of his prior possession against the defendant who has dispossessed him. Such a suit will be founded on the averment of previous possession of the plaintiff and dispossession by the defendant..... In the present case the trial Court has found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The Trial Court therefore left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession, protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit. ….”

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.