In RSA No.3932 of 2018 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- In suit for injunction, questions of fact & law relating to title will not be decided and Court will relegate parties to remedy by way of suit for declaration of title instead of deciding issue in suit for mere injunction, reaffirms P&H HC
Justice Alka Sarin [30-11-2022]

Read Order: Banwari Lal (deceased) through LRs & Others v. Smt. Mayawati & Another 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, December 1, 2022:  While dealing with a regular second appeal in respect of a suit for permanent injunction, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession and normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue.

“It is settled law that in a suit for injunction the questions of fact and law relating to title will not be decided and the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of a comprehensive suit for declaration of title instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction”, the Bench of Justice Alka Sarin. 

The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants against the impugned judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court respectively. 

Briefly stated, the brief facts are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-respondents from the suit property and from raising any construction in the suit property. It was averred that originally Jangli Ram (father-in-law of plaintiff-respondent no.1 and grandfather of plaintiff-respondent no.2) was the owner of the suit property and he resided there along with the plaintiff-respondents and his son Ram Saran.

During the lifetime of Jangli Ram, a family settlement was effected and he distributed his property to his sons Ram Saran and Banwari Lal (original defendant no.1). It was further averred that since the date of the family settlement the plaintiff-respondents are in peaceful possession of the portion which fell to share of Ram Saran (marked as green in plaint). 

As per the plaintiffs-respondents, the dispute between the parties was regarding possession of the said green portion only and in the month of July-August 2005 the building had collapsed due to heavy rainfall and then the defendant-appellants threatened to raise construction over the suit property.

In response, the defendant denied the possession of the plaintiffs and contended that it was the first defendant (other son of Jangli Ram) who was taking care of his father since his childhood, till the death of Jangli Ram. It was further pleaded that the alleged family settlement was never effected by Jangli Ram, who was illiterate and that it was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. 

It was also alleged that Jangli Ram executed a Will in favour of the second defendant (his grandson) and as such the said grandson had become the owner of the suit property.

The Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents holding that the family settlement stood proved as also the possession of the plaintiff-respondents over the suit property. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal along with an application for production of additional evidence. Both were dismissed, hence, the present court was approached. 

Regarding the argument of the appellants on the settlement being vitiated by fraud, the Court observed that apart from making bald averments about fraud and misrepresentation, the defendant-appellants did not plead or prove the existence of any fraud by the plaintiff-respondents. 

“No doubt fraud vitiates everything inasmuch as it affects the very solemnity of the proceedings, however, by now it is the settled law that fraud has to be pleaded and established by leading cogent evidence”, the Court held while also adding, 

“An ambiguous statement cannot per se make a document fraudulent. It is trite that a person raising the plea of fraud needs to plead and prove its ingredients”.

In the present case, the Court held that both the pleadings and the proof were woefully missing. 

The Bench further held, 

“As per the settled proposition of law, mere mentioning and using the word fraud/fraudulent is not sufficient to satisfy the test of fraud. Using the word fraud/fraudulent without any material particulars would not tantamount to pleading of fraud.”

Further, regarding the argument about the execution of a Will, the Court noted that the present suit was one of permanent injunction only. Thus, the Court, 

“A suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession and normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue The prayer for injunction has to be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It is settled law that in a suit for injunction the questions of fact and law relating to title will not be decided and the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of a comprehensive suit for declaration of title instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.”

Also, regarding the question of possession of the plaintiffs, the Court observed that the same having been established, their suit for permanent injunction was rightly decreed by the Courts below. 

Accordingly, the present appeal was dismissed.