- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chunni v. Sullahar Geer
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff-applicants filed a suit seeking a declaration that they were the original owners in possession of the disputed house and a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from interfering with their possession, including by executing a decree obtained under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. They also sought an interim injunction against dispossession. [1]
The trial court rejected the interim injunction application, relying on Parmanand v. Smt. Chimmawati, AIR 1955 All 64. The Civil Judge affirmed that decision on appeal. A learned Single Judge subsequently referred the matter to a Division Bench because he considered that decision to require reconsideration. [2][1]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction to protect possession is competent notwithstanding a decree for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. [3][4][5]
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled, on the facts, to an interim injunction, having regard to the prima facie case and balance of convenience. [6]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Parmanand v. Smt. Chimmawati, AIR 1955 All 64 | A suit seeking to restrain execution of a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was held not to lie because it would defeat the purpose of that provision. | The Court held that this decision did not represent the correct position of law, distinguishing a simple suit to restrain execution from a title suit seeking consequential protection of possession. [3][4] |
| Mari Doddatamma Markundi v. Santaya Ram Krishna Pai Kolle, AIR 1922 Bom 216 | A person in possession against whom a decree under Section 9 had been passed could sue to establish title and seek an injunction restraining execution; such a suit was not barred by Section 56 of the Old Specific Relief Act. | The Court relied on this reasoning in concluding that the present suit was competent. [7][5] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 corresponds to Section 9 of the 1877 Act. Proceedings under Section 6 are summary and determine possession on the relevant date and whether dispossession occurred without consent; questions of title fall outside their scope. [8]
Sub-section (4) of Section 6 expressly preserves the right to sue to establish title and recover possession. Section 5 also permits a person entitled to possession of specific immovable property to recover it through the procedure provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions therefore contemplate a title suit notwithstanding an earlier decision under Section 6. [8][9]
The Court held that where the plaintiff remains in possession, the appropriate consequential relief may be maintenance of the status quo and an injunction against dispossession, rather than recovery of possession. Nothing in Sections 5 and 6 bars such relief. [9]
The present suit was not merely for preventing the defendant from instituting or prosecuting execution proceedings. It sought a declaration of title and an injunction against interference with the plaintiffs’ possession, whether through execution or otherwise. Accordingly, it was distinguishable from the suit considered in Parmanand and was not barred by Section 41(a) or 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. [4]
Although the suit was competent, entitlement to interim relief remained a separate factual question. The trial court had to consider whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience favoured them. The existing decree directing restoration of possession was a relevant circumstance, but the courts below had not applied their minds to these matters. [6]
Holding and Implications
REVISION ALLOWED AND MATTER REMANDED. The impugned orders were set aside, and the application for interim injunction was remitted to the trial court for decision in accordance with the stated observations and law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. [10]
The direct effect was that the plaintiffs’ suit was held maintainable, but no final determination was made on their entitlement to interim injunction. No broader implications were discussed and no separate new precedent was identified beyond the ruling stated. [5][6][10]
1. A learned Single Judge of this Court felt that the decision of another Single Judge in Parmanand v. Smt. Chimmawati, AIR 1955 All 64 requires reconsideration. He referred the case to a Division Bench.
2. The plaintiff-applicants institute ed a suit for a declaration that they are the original owners in possession of the house in dispute and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiffs" possession either by executing the decree granted to him under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act or through any other means or ways. Along with the plaint the plaintiffs filed an application for an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs. The trial Court relying upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in AIR 1955 All 64, held that the applicant was not entitled to an injunction and rejected it. This view was confirmed by the Civil Judge on appeal.
3. In Parmanand's case, AIR 1955 All 64 a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was decreed. The defendant to that suit instituted a regular title Suit praying for an injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree granted under Section 9. It was held that such a suit does not lie because if the prayer for an injunction is granted the very object and purpose of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act will be defeated. The object and purpose of that suit was that if a person takes the law in his own hands and forcibly dispossesses another otherwise than in accordance with law he must surrender possession irrespective of any title that may vest in him. If a plea of title cannot be set up in the suit itself, it can also not be set up as a bar to execution proceedings. In our opinion this decision does not represent the correct position of law.
4. Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 corresponds to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act provides that if any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. Such proceedings are summary and are intended merely to adjudicate the question as to which party was in possession on the relevant date and whether the plaintiff was dispossessed without his consent. Questions of title are outside the purview of such a suit. It is specifically provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 6 which says that a decree under Sub-section (1) shall not preclude him "from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. Section 5 further provides that a person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. These provisions contemplate the institution of a title suit in spite of the decision of a suit under Section 6. Since the decree under Section 6 grants possession to the dispossessed plaintiff Sub-section (4) thereof specifically makes it clear that such a decree cannot bar a fresh suit for recovery of possession. The phrase "and to recover possession thereof occurring in Section 6 does not, in our opinion, preclude or bar a suit for title in which a consequential relief other than the relief for recovery of possession may be taken. It will depend upon the factual position. In a case where the plaintiff is dissatisfied with a decree under Section 6 he can immediately institute a suit for a declaration of his title. He can claim the available consequential relief. If on the date of the suit the plaintiff finds himself in possession of the property, he cannot, legitimately ask for recovery of possession. All that he can pray for is that the status quo be maintained and an injunction be issued restraining the defendant from dispossessing him. This consequential relief naturally follows from his claim on title coupled with the reality and the situation. There is nothing in Sections 5 and 6 of the Specific Relief Act to debar the plaintiff from claiming an appropriate consequential relief.
6. In Permanand's case, AIR 1955 All 64 it was held that permitting a person to sue to obtain an injunction restraining the other side from executing the decree would defeat the object of Section 9. That may be so. It may also be urged that a suit simpliciter for such a relief, namely, to restrain the respondent from executing the decree, may be barred by Section 41(a) and 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Rut the position will not be the same in a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief for preservation of plaintiff's possession. In the present case the relief sought is for a declaration and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff either by executing the decree or through any other means or ways. This, strictly speaking, is not a suit either to restrain the defendant from prosecuting a judicial proceeding or from instituting the execution application within meaning of clauses (a) and (b) of section 41. The relief is to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and not for a direction to prevent him from instituting or prosecuting the execution proceedings. From this point of view this case is slightly distinguishable from the facts of Parmanand's case, AIR 1955 All 64.
7. Our attention is invited to the decision of Mari Doddatamma Markundi v. Santaya Ram Krishna Pai Kolle, AIR 1922 Bom 216 wherein it was held that a person in possession against whom a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act has been passed in favour of another person can bring a suit to establish his title to the land, and for an injunction restraining the other person from executing his decree. It was held that such a suit is not barred by Section 56 of the Old Specific Relief Act, which is equivalent to section 41(a) of the present act.
8. In our opinion the suit was competent.
9. The question whether on facts the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction of the kind prayed for is entirely a different matter. The court will have to apply its mind whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case and whether the balance of convenience is in his favour. In that connection the fact that a court has granted a decree directing the other side to be put back in possession is a relevant circumstance. The courts below have, however, not applied their minds to the facts of the case. It is, therefore, necessary to send the case back.
10. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is sent back to the trial Court for disposal of the application for an interim injunction in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. The parties will however bear their own costs.
Alert