ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v. P. BUCH! REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS & Ors.

1.3 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. In cases of vacant land, the principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession, as c against the person who iis not able to establish title. This means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be necessary to e>eamine and determine the title as a prelude for deciding the de jure possession. In such a D situation,, where the title is clear and simple, the court may venture a decision on the issue of title, so as to decide the question of de jure possession even though the suit is for a mere injunction. But where the issue of title involves complicated or comple!X questions of fact and law, or E where court feels that parties had not proceeded on the basis that title was in issue, the court should not decide the issue of title in a suit for injunction. The proper course is to relegate the plaintiff to the remedy of a full-fledged suit~for declaration and consequential reliefs. [Paras 14 F and 17] [346-G; 347-A, 13, C; 350-A, B]

1.4 However, 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). Where the av1erments regarding title are absent in a plai.nt 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 G I I Pl ' • + )' ~ >- ANATHULA SUDHAKAR v. P. BUCHI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 335 way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead A of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. [Para 17] [350-C, D, E]

1.5 Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight- B forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not C be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries · to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire D into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case. [Para 17] [350-F, G, H; 351-A] Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar Uthirasomasundareswarar Temple vs. Rajanga Asari - AIR E