Perpetual Injunction — Requirement of Possession on Date of Suit
(Paras 11–12)
In a suit for perpetual injunction relating to immovable property, proof of actual possession on the date of institution of the suit is an essential prerequisite. Absence of pleading and proof of such possession is fatal to the relief of injunction.
Recovery of Possession — Mandatory Pleadings — Specifics of Dispossession
(Paras 11–12)
In a suit seeking recovery of possession, the plaintiff must specifically plead and prove entitlement, manner of acquisition of title, date and mode of dispossession, and the illegality of the defendant’s possession. Absence of material particulars in the plaint renders the claim legally unsustainable.
Burden of Proof — Plaintiff Must Stand on Own Pleadings
(Paras 11–13)
The plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case. The burden cannot be shifted onto the defendant merely because the defendant’s plea is disbelieved. An appellate court errs if it reverses findings without examining whether the plaintiff discharged the foundational burden in accordance with the nature of the relief sought.
Maintenance — Section 14(1), Hindu Succession Act, 1956
(Para 7.1 – Context)
Where property is granted to a female Hindu in lieu of maintenance, such right, being a pre-existing right under Shastric Hindu Law, may ripen into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, such determination must arise within the proper framework of pleadings and relief claimed.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The appeal arose from proceedings concerning agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals 05 Marlas in District Una, Himachal Pradesh.
The original plaintiff filed a suit in 1990 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession. The plaint was later amended to include a prayer for recovery of possession.
The plaintiff claimed ownership and asserted that the defendant’s possession, if any, was only Hisadari possession on his behalf. The first defendant, however, claimed possession in her own right, asserting that after the death of her husband Roshan Lal, her father-in-law, as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, granted the suit property to her in lieu of maintenance. She contended that this right matured into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree. The High Court, in Second Appeal, allowed the appeal and restored dismissal of the suit.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal contention of the appellants (plaintiff’s LRs) was that the plaintiff had a 1/6th share and that possession of the first defendant was not adverse but only on behalf of the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court examined the nature of the reliefs claimed:
First, as to perpetual injunction, the Court reiterated the settled principle that possession on the date of filing of the suit is indispensable. The concurrent findings showed that the plaintiff was not in possession. Hence, the injunction could not be granted.
Second, as to recovery of possession, the Court emphasised that the plaint must contain material particulars regarding entitlement, date and manner of dispossession, and the illegality of defendant’s possession. The plaint was found to be completely deficient in such foundational pleadings.
The Court relied upon Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira to reiterate that pleadings in possession suits must be detailed and specific. Mere fragments of evidence cannot cure absence of pleadings.
The Supreme Court also observed that the First Appellate Court had erred by improperly shifting the burden onto the defendant and drawing adverse inferences, without first examining whether the plaintiff had established the essential ingredients of the relief claimed.
Given the fundamental pleading deficiencies, the suit was held to be rightly dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
In a suit for injunction and recovery of possession relating to immovable property, the plaintiff must establish through specific pleadings and proof (i) possession on the date of suit for injunction, and (ii) entitlement, date and mode of dispossession, and illegality of defendant’s possession for recovery. In absence of such foundational pleadings, the suit is liable to be dismissed irrespective of perceived weaknesses in the defendant’s case.
RESULT
The Civil Appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications stood disposed of.
