The Supreme Court has reiterated that a suit for bare injunction would not be maintainable when a defendant could successfully raise cloud over the title of the Plaintiff.
The said decision was made in the matter of Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 8241 of 2009), decided on 19.10.2018.
The Jharkhand State Housing Board had approached the Apex Court assailing the High court and Trial court judgment that had decreed a suit for permanent injunction filed by one Didar Singh for the reason that a notice dated 4.1.1992 asking the plaintiff to quit and give vacant possession of the suit land was issued hence a threat to dispossess from the suit land without any right and title over the same arose. The board contended that the suit is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title as the suit schedule property was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the defendant. It was also contended that, without seeking right, title, possession and correction of entries in record of right, plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for injunction. The High court, while rejecting its appeal, had observed that as the plaintiff is in possession of the property, he can protect his possession against any interference and it is not necessary to prove his title to the property.
The Bench observed that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration.
A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.
Likewise, in the present case, the Bench observed that the Appellant by relying upon the land acquisition proceedings initiated for the land in dispute and the possession certificate could successfully raise cloud over the title of the plaintiff and in those circumstances plaintiff ought to have sought for the relief of declaration and the suit for injunction simplicitor could not have been entertained.