16.01.2025 Firm Messe Shri Charan Messers National Wollen Mills throug Charanjit Kapoor, its partner v. Bubber Con er Containers
Case Details
1 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) [119] [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RSA-1047 Date of De 1047-2014 (O&M) of Decision : 16.01.2025 Firm Messe Shri Charan Messers National Wollen Mills throug Charanjit Kapoor, its partner through versus Bubber Con er Containers (P) Limited through Dir gh Directors of the defen e defendant/respondent Company, Am y, Amritsar. …Appellant ….Respondents [2] RSA-5927 5927-2015 (O&M) Bubber Con its authoris of the Appe er Containers (P) Limited, Amritsar uthorised signatory Manjyot Singh, e Appellant Company, Amritsar ritsar through ingh, Director versus Firm Messe Shri Charan Messers National Wollen Mills throug Charanjit Kapoor, its partner through …Appellant ….Respondent Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Adv vocate Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate 1047-2014. for the appellant in RSA-1047 Advocate with enior Advocate and Mrs. Munisha Gandhi, Senior dvocate with Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocat Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Ms. Salina Chalana and Mr. A ndents Advocates for the respondents for the appellant in RSA-1047-2014 and for the in RSA-5927-2015 . *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] Plaintiff is in second appeal. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) [2] These two instant appeals wi als will dispose off two cross-appea appeals directed ag ted against the same judgment. [3] For convenience, parties are s are hereinafter referred to by the by their original po nal positions as in the suit i.e. appella
Facts
ppellant as plaintiff and respondents a dents as dants. defendants. [4] RSA-1047-2014 is at the behe 5927- e behest of the plaintiff and RSA-5927 2015 is at t is at the behest of the defendants. [5] Plaintiff filed a suit for perman permanent injunction, seeking decree o ecree of restraint ag aint against the defendants from inter interfering in his peaceful possessio ssession over the in the industrial plots bearing Nos.16, 1 s.16, 17, 24 & 25 situated in Industri dustrial Developme lopment Colony near Guru Nanak Dev ak Dev University, Amritsar. It was It wa claimed tha ed that the plots in question, were a were allotted in favour of the plaintif laintiff- firm and th and the firm is in possession as owners owners thereof. [6] Suit was resisted by the defen defendants for denying the ownersh nership of the plain e plaintiff. [7] It was claimed that the prop e property in fact never vested in th in the partnership ership firm. The defendants are ts are allottee under the Industrie dustries Departmen rtment, State of Punjab and are thus re thus real owner thereof. [8] On the basis of pleadings, follo s, following issues were framed:- “1) Whether the plaintiff is Shri Charanjit Kapoor OPP. ff is a registered partnership firm an oor is one of its registered partners m and tners? 2) Whether the plots No. 1 the Industries Departme o. 16, 17, 24 and 25 were allotted b rtment to the plaintiff? OPP ted by 3) Whether the plaintiffs ar in question as alleged? O ffs are owners in possession of the lo ed? OPP. he lots RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) 4) Whether the plots in que to the defendant and thereof? OPD. question stands resumed and re-so nd that defendant is in possessio sold ession 5) Whether the plaintiff is iff is entitled to permanent injunctio nction as prayed for? OPP. 6) Relief. ” [9] Findings on Issue Nos.2 & 3 w & 3 were returned against the plainti plaintiff by the Cour e Court of first instance. It was held th held that the plaintiff was not the own e owner or allottee lottee as claimed. While returning fin ing finding on Issue No.4, Court relie rt relied upon testim testimony of DW-10 to hold that thou at though defendants have been allotte allotted plots after after resumption but it is only the the symbolic possession that has bee as been handed ove ed over to them. Thus, learned Tr ed Trial Court though found that th that the plaintiff is tiff is in physical possession but he eld his possession to be illegal n egal not sustainable inable. Suit was ordered to be dismis dismissed. The aforesaid findings stan gs stand affirmed by ed by the learned Appellate Court in urt in appeal. [10] [11] Plaintiff has filed appeal, impu ecree. l, impugning the judgment and decree. Defendants are in appeal, impu l, impugning the findings on Issue No ue No.4 with respec respect to possession. [12]
Legal Reasoning
words “prima facie case ase” and “balance of convenience” a and observed in Mahadeo's ca 's case (supra) that: "9. It is settled law th w that no injunction could be grant ranted against the owner at the t the instance of a person in unlawf lawful possession." [17] Section 38 of the Specific Reli ic Relief Act, 1963 governs the grant o grant of perpetual in etual injunctions. The same read as un as under:- “38. Perpetual injunction wh n when granted.— (1) Subject to the other prov provisions contained in or referred red to by this Chapter, a perpe erpetual injunction may be granted ted to the plaintiff to preven event the breach of an obligatio gation existing in his favour, whether expressly or b favo r by RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document implication. 6 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) (2) When any such obligati igation arises from contract, the cou court shall be guided by the r the rules and provisions contained ned in Chapter II. (3) When the defendant inv t invades or threatens to invade th de the plaintiff’s right to, or e or enjoyment of, property, the cou court may grant a perpetual ual injunction in the following case cases, namely:— (a) where the defend fendant is trustee of the property f rty for the plaintiff; (b) where there exists xists no standard for ascertaining th ng the actual damage ca e caused, or likely to be caused, b ed, by the invasion; (c) where the invasio vasion is such that compensation ion in money would not not afford adequate relief; (d) where the injunc junction is necessary to prevent ent a multiplicity of jud f judicial proceedings.” [18] Once the resumption and the the subsequent allotment has bee been proved bey ed beyond doubt, plaintiff cannot claim ot claim his possession to be rightful o htful or to be the one which needs to be protecte rotected being one of the situations a tions as contemplat mplated under Section 38(3). [19] At this stage, it needs to be o to be observed that in the present su ent suit, though the gh the plaintiff claimed perpetual inj ual injunction but the same was bein s being claimed ass ed asserting title over the suit land. T and. Title of the plaintiff was serious eriously disputed b ted by the defendants. Thus, the p the plaintiff on the date of suit wa uit was required to ired to plead and prove that he was e was in lawful possession of the su the suit property. O erty. Once, defendants raised serious erious issue with respect to title of th e of the plaintiff an tiff and plaintiff himself asserted tit ted title, the findings recorded by th by the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Courts belo ts below on Issue Nos.2, 3 & 4 4 have assumed much significanc ificance. 7 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) Reference rence can be made to law laid down down by Supreme Court in ‘Anathu nathula Sudhakar akar versus P. Buchi Reddy’, repor , reported as (2008) 4 SCC 594, whic which reads as un as under:- “21. To summarize, the positio sition in regard to suits for prohibito ibitory injunction relating to immovable able property, is as under :- (a) Where a cloud is d is raised over plaintiff's title and nd he does not have possess session, a suit for declaration an and possession, with or witho ithout a consequential injunction, is t is the remedy. Where the plaint laintiff's title is not in dispute or under nder a cloud, but he is out of pos f possession, he has to sue for possessio ession with a consequential inj l injunction. Where there is merely a ely an interference with plainti aintiff's lawful possession or threat eat of dispossession, it is suf sufficient to sue for an injunctio nction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injun injunction simpliciter is concerned on d only with possession, normally ally the issue of title will not be direct irectly and substantially in issue issue. The prayer for injunction will ill be decided with reference to ce to the finding on possession. But But in cases where de jure poss possession has to be established on t on the basis of title to the proper operty, as in the case of vacant sites, t es, the issue of title may dir directly and substantially arise f se for consideration, as withou thout a finding thereon, it will not not be possible to decide the issu issue of possession. (c) But a finding on ti on title cannot be recorded in a suit f uit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings an there and appropriate issue regard arding title [either specific, or impli mplied as noticed in Annaimu aimuthu Thevar (supra)]. Where t e the averments regarding title title are absent in a plaint and whe where there is no issue relating ting to title, the court will not investiga stigate or examine or render a fi a finding on a question of title, in a su a suit for injunction. Even wher here there are necessary pleadings an gs and issue, if the matter involv volves complicated questions of fact an ct and law relating to title, the c the court will relegate the parties to t to the RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) remedy by way of compre mprehensive suit for declaration of titl f title, instead of deciding the iss e issue in a suit for mere injunction. (d) Where there are n re necessary pleadings regarding tit g title, and appropriate issue rel e relating to title on which parties lea s lead evidence, if the matter tter involved is simple and straigh raight- forward, the court may d ay decide upon the issue regarding titl g title, even in a suit for injunctio nction. But such cases, are the exceptio eption to the normal rule that qu at question of title will not be decided ded in suits for injunction. B But persons having clear title an e and possession suing for inju injunction, should not be driven to t to the costlier and more cum it cumbersome remedy of a suit for f declaration, merely beca because some meddler vexatiously sly or wrongfully makes a cla claim or tries to encroach upon h on his property. The court sho should use its discretion carefully lly to identify cases where it wi it will enquire into title and cases whe where it will refer to plaintiff to iff to a more comprehensive declarato ratory suit, depending upon the f the facts of the case. ” [20] Further reference can be m be made to observations made b ade by Supreme C eme Court in the case of ‘Jharkhan rkhand State Housing Board vers versus Didar Sing r Singh’, reported as (2019) 17 SCC 6 CC 692, observing as under:- “11. It is well settled by caten atena of judgments of this Court tha that in each and every case wh where the defendant disputes the tit he title of the plaintiff it is not necessar ssary that in all those cases plaintiff h tiff has to seek the relief of declaration. tion. A suit for mere injunction does n es not lie only when the defendant rais raises a genuine dispute with regard ard to title and when he raises a cloud cloud over the title of the plaintiff, th f, then necessarily in those circumstan stances, the plaintiff cannot maintain tain a suit for bare injunction.” [21] In view thereof, this Court fin urt finds that the Courts below right rightly dismissed t issed the suit filed by the plaintiff. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [22] Counsel representing defenda efendants submits that in view of th of the 9 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) findings gi ngs given by this Court hereinabove bove and the fact that the suit filed b filed by the plaintif laintiff has been dismissed, she doe he does not wish to press her appea appeal. RSA-5927 5927-2015 is thus dismissed as not pr not pressed. [23] All pending miscellaneous ous application(s), if any, also stand stands
Arguments
Mr. Bhan, Senior Counsel, w sel, while assailing the judgment an ent and decree pas e passed by both the Courts below below, below, asserts that the Courts below misdirected irected themselves in ignoring the fac the fact that the suit was simplicitor fo r for grant of de t of decree of permanent injunction. T ion. The only determining factor bein being ‘physical p sical possession’, once the plaintiff ha tiff has been found to be in possessio ssession concurrentl urrently by both the Courts, the suit e suit ought to have been decreed creed in favour of t ur of the plaintiff. He thus, submits bmits that even though plaintiff has n f has no RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document title but hav but having being found in possession ssion is entitled to decree of permane rmanent 4 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) ction. injunction. [13] Per contra, learned Senior Cou or Counsel appearing for the defendan fendants submits tha its that even though the Courts below s below found that the plaintiff was f was in possession ession, but it has been held that the at the possession of the plaintiff aft after resumption ption was that of a trespasser and th and thus, plaintiff was not entitled fo itled for injunction. ction. Defendant being lawful allotte allottee, suit against true owner was n was not maintainab tainable. [14] From the conjoint reading of d g of documents (Exhibits D-8 & D-11 11), it is evide evident that the defendants were hande handed over possession after allotme llotment and in view in view of the overwhelming docume ocumentary evidence on record, Cou d, Court ought not h t not have given precedence to the oral he oral testimony. [15] I have heard counsel for the or the parties and have carefully gon gone through the gh the records of the case. [16] Learned Senior counsel appea appearing for the appellant is not in not in a position to ion to dispute that the resumption p tion proceedings qua the plots again against appellant st llant stand concluded. Even prior to f or to filing of the suit, the same beca became final. The . The plots stand further allotted. E ed. Even if for the sake of argumen gument, plaintiff is tiff is held to be in possession, in ord in order to maintain suit for perpetu erpetual injunction, ction, he needs to show that his posse s possession is lawful. The question i stion is, “can plaint plaintiff seek decree of permanent anent injunction against true owner? owner?” Supreme C eme Court in ‘Sopan Sukhdeo S eo Sable versus Assistant Chari Charity Commissio missioner’, reported as (2004) 3 SC SCC 137 while answering the sa the said issue, obser , observed as under:- “25. Now the other aspect o ct of the matter needs to be note noted. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Assuming a trespasser ousted ted can seek restoration of possessio ession 5 RSA-1047-2014 (O& RSA-5927-2015 (O& 4 (O&M) & 5 (O&M) under Section 6 of the Specific R ific Relief Act, 1963, can the trespass passer seek injunction against the tru e true owner? This question does n es not entirely depend upon Section 6 n 6 of the Specific Relief Act, but main mainly depends upon certain general ral principles applicable to the law law of injunctions and as to the scope cope of the exercise of discretion whi while granting injunction. In Mah Mahadeo Savlaram Sheike v. Pun Pune Municipal Corporation (1995 95 (3) SCC 33), it was held, aft after referring to Woodrofe : "Law aw relating to injunction; L.C. Goya Goyal, L.C. : 'Law of injunctions; B s; Bean David : Injunctions; Jayce ayce : Injunctions and other leading ding Articles on the subject that t at the appellant who was a trespas spasser in possession could not se t seek injunction against the true o e owner. In that context this Cou Court quoted Shiv Kumar Chadha v. v. Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi [(1993 1993 3 SCC 161) wherein it was obser bserved that injunction is discretiona ionary and that:- "Judicial proceedings c s cannot be used to protect or or to perpetuate a wrong comm committed by a person who approach oaches the Court". 26. Reference was also also made to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahla rahlad Singh (1992 (1) SCC 71 719) in regard to the meaning of t of the
Decision
disposed of ed off. [24] Photocopy of this order be plac d case. be placed on the file of connected case (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE .2025 16.01.2025 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.01.21 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document