2021 INSC 0397
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5575­5576 OF 2021
[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 9948­49 of 2020]
KAYALULLA PARAMBATH MOIDU 
HAJI             ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAMBOODIYIL VINODAN    ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These   appeals   challenge   the   judgment   and   order   passed
by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dated 21 st
August 2019 in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 2007 thereby
allowing   the   appeal   in   part   and   remanding   the   suit   to   the
learned   trial   court   for   fresh   disposal.     The   appeals   also
challenge   the   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Kerala
1

High   Court   dated   10 th
  February   2020   in   Review   Petition   No.
1242   of   2019   in   RSA   No.   83   of   2007   thereby   dismissing   the
review petition. 
3. The   facts  in   brief  giving   rise  to   filing  of   these  appeals  are
as under:­
The parties are referred to herein as they were referred to
in the original suit. The appellant­plaintiff had filed a plaint in
respect of the suit property claiming that it belonged to him by
virtue of the registered assignment deed No. 110 of 1977 SRO,
Kavilumpara executed by Kalariyullathil Paru.  It is the claim of
the appellant­plaintiff that he had effected improvements in the
suit property and also paid land revenue.   It is the claim of the
appellant­plaintiff   that   the   respondent­defendant   has   no   right
over  the  suit  property.   As per   the  plaint, a  portion  of  the suit
property  is  a  coconut   garden  and  the  southern  side is  a  rocky
area   with  timber   trees.     It   is   the   case   of   the  appellant­plaintiff
that   there   are   definite   boundaries   on   all   the   four   sides   of   the
suit property.  It is his case that there is a road on the western
2

side   of   the   suit   property   and   the   respondent­defendant’s
property   is   further   westwards.     It   is   the   case   of   the   appellant­
plaintiff that he is residing at a distance of 1½	 kms away from
the   suit   property.     It   is   further   his   case   that   on   16 th
  January
2002   at   about   10:00   a.m.,   the   respondent­defendant   and   five
others   trespassed   into   the   plaint   schedule   property   and
attempted   to   cut   and   remove   a   jackfruit   tree   worth
Rs.60,000/­.   After   coming   to   know   the   same,   the   appellant­
plaintiff   rushed   to   the   spot   and   prevented   the   respondent­
defendant.     The   appellant­plaintiff   therefore   filed   a   suit   with   a
prayer  to  restrain  the  respondent­defendant  and his  men  from
trespassing   into   the   suit   property,   committing   waste   therein
and   from   interfering   with   the   peaceful   possession   and
enjoyment of the suit property by the appellant­plaintiff.
4. The   claim   of   the   appellant­plaintiff   was   resisted   by   the
respondent­defendant   by   filing   a   written   statement.     It   is   the
case   of   the   respondent­defendant   that   the   plaint   schedule
property   is   not   identifiable   from   the   description   given   in   the
3

plaint.     It   is   his   case   that   the   property   described   in   the   plaint
schedule   and   the   property   shown   to   the   Advocate
Commissioner   is   different.     It   is   the   case   of   the   respondent­
defendant   that   the   property   to   the   extent   of   52½	  cents
belonging   to   the   respondent­defendant,   despite   not   being
included   in   the   assignment   deed   of   1977,   is   being   claimed   by
the appellant­plaintiff to be in his possession.   It is his further
case   that   the   said   property   is   also   not   part   of   the   purchase
certificate.   It is the  case of  the respondent­defendant  that the
suit   property   never   belonged   to   Kalariyullathil   Paru   and
therefore,   no   right   could   be   transferred   in   favour   of   the
appellant­plaintiff   by   virtue   of   assignment   deed   dated   15 th
January   1977.     It   is   the   specific   case   of   the   respondent­
defendant   that   the   property   as   described   in   the   plaint   was
never owned by the appellant­plaintiff or his predecessors. 
5. It is the case of the respondent­defendant that he had sold
a jackfruit tree to one Nanu and Rafeeq for Rs. 65,000/­ which
was   in   the   marginally   noted   property   and   they   had   cut   and
4

removed   the   tree.     It   is   the   case   of   the   respondent­defendant
that   as   per   the   Commission’s   Report,   the   timber   was   seen
outside the suit property on the roadside.   It is the case of the
respondent­defendant   that   the   father   of   the   respondent­
defendant   namely   Puthenpurayil   Othenan   was   having   a
property   admeasuring   85  ×	  200   six   feet   kol   by   virtue   of
registered assignment deed dated 10 th
 August 1927.  According
to the respondent­defendant, his father had given possession of
a   portion   of   the   property   to   the   tenants   and   was   holding   7.38
acres   of   land   in   which   his   wife   and   children   including   the
respondent­defendant   derived   title   over   the   property.     It   is   the
further   case   of   the   respondent­defendant   that   a   suit   bearing
O.S. No. 47 of 1983 was filed in respect of a portion of the said
property.     It   is   his   case   that   an   Advocate   Commissioner   had
prepared plan and report of the disputed property in that suit.
It   is   the   case   of   the   respondent­defendant   that   as   per   the
judgment  and  decree passed  in the said suit  as well  as by   the
learned   Appellate   Court,   it   was   held   that   the   marginally   noted
5

property  belonged  to the respondent­defendant  and  other   legal
heirs   of   deceased   Othenan.     It   is   the   case   of   the   respondent­
defendant   that   the   legal   heirs   of   the   said   Othenan   had
partitioned their property by registered partition deed dated 4 th
February   1999   and  the   marginally   noted   property   was  allotted
jointly   to   the   respondent­defendant,   his   sister   Geetha   and
brother Ramesan as Item No. 2 in B, C and D schedules of the
partition deed.  The respondent­defendant has therefore denied
the   claim   of   the   appellant­plaintiff   and   prayed   for   dismissal   of
the suit. 
6. On   the   basis   of   the   rival   pleadings,   the   following   issues
came to be framed by the learned trial court:­
(i) What is the correct identity of the plaint schedule
property?
(ii) Whether   the   plaintiff   has   possession   over   the
plaint schedule property?
(iii) Whether the cause of action alleged is true?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for
injunction as prayed for?
6

(v) Relief and costs?
7. After considering the evidence led on behalf of the parties,
the   learned   trial   judge   decreed   the   suit   vide   judgment   and
decree   dated   7 th
  March   2003.     Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the
respondent­defendant preferred an appeal before the Additional
District   and   Sessions   Judge,   Vadakara   being   Appeal   Suit   No.
43 of 2003.  The learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   respondent­defendant   preferred
Second Appeal to the High Court.   By  the impugned judgment
and order dated 21 st
 August 2019, the same was allowed by the
High   Court   and   the  suit   is  remanded  to  learned  trial   court  for
deciding afresh with liberty to parties to amend the pleading.  A
review   petition   was   also   filed   by   the   respondent­defendant
seeking review of the order of the High Court dated 21 st
 August
2019.   The   said   review   petition   came   to   be   dismissed   by   the
High   Court   vide   order   dated   10 th
  February   2020.     Being
aggrieved thereby, the present appeals.
7

8. Shri P.N. Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   appellant­plaintiff   submitted   that   the   High   Court
has grossly erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact
recorded   by   the   learned   trial   court   as   well   as   the   learned
Appellate Court.  He submitted that on the basis of the report of
the   Advocate   Commissioner,   the   learned   trial   court   as   well   as
the   learned   Appellate   Court   has   found   that   the   appellant­
plaintiff   has   successfully   proved   his   possession   over   the   suit
property   and   therefore,   have   rightly   decreed   the   suit   and
dismissed   the   appeal.     The   learned   Senior   Counsel,   relying   on
the judgment of this Court in the case of  Anathula Sudhakar
v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. and Others 1
, would submit
that   since   the   suit   was   for   injunction   simpliciter,   the   issue   of
title   was   not   directly   and   substantially   in   issue   and   therefore,
the   suit,   as   filed   by   the   appellant­plaintiff,   was   very   much
maintainable.     He   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   grossly
erred in holding that the suit, as filed by the appellant­plaintiff,
was not maintainable.
1   (2008) 4 SCC 594
8

9. Per contra, Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent­defendant   submitted
that   even   from   the   report   of   the   Advocate   Commissioner,   it
could   be   seen   that   the   identification   of   the   property   was   not
beyond doubt.  He submitted that the learned trial court as well
as   the   learned   Appellate   Court   had   grossly   erred   in   decreeing
the   suit   inasmuch   as   it   could   not   be   said   that   the   title   of   the
appellant­plaintiff was clear.   He also relied on the judgment of
this Court in the case of  Anathula Sudhakar (supra) .
10. The short question that falls for consideration before us is:
Whether   the   learned   S ingle   Judge   of   the   High   Court   was
right   in   holding   that   the   suit   simpliciter   for   permanent
injunction   without   claiming   declaration   of   title,   as   filed   by   the
plaintiff, was not maintainable? 
11. The   issue   is   no   more   res   integra .     The   position   has   been
crystalised   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Anathula   Sudhakar
(supra)  in paragraph 21, which read thus:­
9

“ 21.   To   summarise,   the   position   in   regard   to   suits
for   prohibitory   injunction   relating   to   immovable
property, is as under:
( a )   Where   a   cloud   is   raised   over   the
plaintiff's   title   and   he   does   not   have
possession,   a   suit   for   declaration   and
possession,   with   or   without   a   consequential
injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's
title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he
is   out   of   possession,   he   has   to   sue   for
possession   with   a   consequential   injunction.
Where there is merely an interference with the
plaintiff's   lawful   possession   or   threat   of
dispossession,   it   is   sufficient   to   sue   for   an
injunction simpliciter.
( b )   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.   But   in   cases   where   de
jure   possession   has   to   be   established   on   the
basis  of  title  to  the   property,  as  in  the  case  of
vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and
substantially   arise   for   consideration,   as
without   a   finding   thereon,   it   will   not   be
possible to decide the issue of possession.
( c ) But a finding on title cannot be recorded
in   a   suit   for   injunction,   unless   there   are
necessary   pleadings   and   appropriate   issue
10

regarding   title   (either   specific,   or   implied   as
noticed   in   Annaimuthu   Thevar   [ Annaimuthu
Thevar   v.   Alagammal ,   (2005)   6   SCC   202]).
Where the averments regarding title are absent
in a plaint 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   way   of
comprehensive   suit   for   declaration   of   title,
instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere
injunction.
( d )   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  straightforward,
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   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
11

will   enquire   into   title   and   cases   where   it   will
refer   to   the   plaintiff   to   a   more   comprehensive
declaratory   suit,   depending   upon   the   facts   of
the case.”
12. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms
has   held   that   where   the   plaintiff’s   title   is   not   in   dispute   or
under   a   cloud,   a   suit   for   injunction   could   be   decided   with
reference to the finding on possession.  It has been clearly held
that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law
relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy
by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of
deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.  
13. No   doubt,   this   Court   has   held   that   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   straightforward,   the   court   may   decide
upon   the   issue   regarding   title,   even   in   a   suit   for   injunction.
However, it has been held that such cases are the exception to
12

the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits
for injunction. 
14. In   this   background,   we   will   have   to   consider   the   facts   of
the present case.
15. From the perusal of the pleadings, it could be seen that it
is the case of  the  appellant­plaintiff  that  he derives the title  to
the suit property on the basis of registered assignment deed No.
110   of   1977.     It   is   the   appellant­plaintiff’s   case   that   he   is   in
exclusive possession of the said property.   Per  contra, it is the
claim   of   the   respondent­defendant   that   the   property   shown   in
the margin of the written statement to an extent of 52 ½	 cents
belongs   to   the   respondent­defendant   and   that   the   appellant­
plaintiff was illegally claiming right over the said property.  It is
his   specific   case   that   the   property   is   neither   included   in   the
assignment   deed   nor   in   the   purchase   certificate   produced   by
the   appellant­plaintiff.     It   is   his   further   case   that   the   said
property   belonged   to   his   father   Othenan   by   virtue   of
assignment   from   Puthiyottil   Kanaran.     It   is   his   case   that   the
13

title   of   Puthiyottil   Kanaran   under   Exhibit­A15   is   referable   to
Exhibit­A14 i.e. Document No. 2987 of 1924.   It is the specific
case   of   the   respondent­defendant   that   after   the   death   of   his
father, his mother and children applied for purchase certificate
by   filing   Application   being   O.A.   No.   7014   of   1976   to   purchase
the  Jenmam  right under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act,   1963.     It   is   his   case   that   the   Land   Tribunal   allowed   the
said application on 9 th
 May 1977.  Thereafter, the partition took
place   between   the   wife   and   children   of   Othenan   in   the   year
1999.
16. The   learned   trial   court   in   its   order   has   observed   that   the
survey number shown in the plaint schedule is R.S. 28/1A and
the survey number of the property  claimed by the respondent­
defendant in the margin of the written statement is R.S. 30/1.
It   has   further   observed   that   from   the   report   of   the   Advocate
Commissioner it would reveal that the correct survey number of
the   disputed   property   would   be   either   R.S.   119/1   or   119/2.
However,   the   learned   trial   judge   observed   that   the   survey
14

number   does   not   have   much   relevance   in   the   identification   of
the disputed property.
17. The learned Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal,
though   observed   that   on   inspection,   the   Advocate
Commissioner   could   see   some   portion   of   a   revetment   in
between the plots A and B which has been marked in Exhibit­
C1 Plan.   It goes on to observe that the said revetment cannot
be   treated   as   physical   demarcation   or   boundary   because   the
Advocate   Commissioner   is   definite   that   he   could   not   see
anything   to   indicate   that   there   had   been   such   a   boundary   or
revetment   and   that   it   was   impossible   to   put   up   such   a
revetment   throughout   the   length   from   east   to   west   because   it
was   a   sloping   rocky   area   wherein   such   a   revetment   cannot   be
put up. The learned Appellate Court further observed that when
the   plot   A   is   admittedly   in   the   possession   of   the   appellant­
plaintiff,   the   only   finding   possible   is   that   the   disputed   plot   B
also   is  in   his   possession.     The   learned   Appellate   Court  further
observed   that   if  the   respondent­defendant   claims  title   over   the
15

disputed property, then the only remedy available to him, is to
recover  it  under   the  law.  It  goes  on   to  observe  that  in  the  suit
for injunction simpliciter, the only material issue is whether the
appellant­plaintiff has got actual and exclusive possession over
the   entire   plaint   schedule   property   including   the   disputed
portion.
18. It could thus clearly be seen that this is not a case where
the appellant­plaintiff can be said to have a clear title over the
suit   property   or   that   there   is   no   cloud   on   appellant­plaintiff’s
title over the suit property.   There is a serious dispute between
the   appellant­plaintiff   and   respondent­defendant   with   regard
not only to title over the suit property but also its identification,
which cannot be decided unless the entire documentary as well
as oral evidence is appreciated in a full­fledged trial.
19. We find that the present case would be covered by clause
(b) of paragraph 21 of the judgment of this Court in   Anathula
Sudhakar   (supra) .     We   find   that,   in   the   present   case,   the
question   of   de   jure   possession   has   to   be   established   on   the
16

basis of the title over the property.  Since the said property is a
vacant   site,   the   issue   of   title   would   directly   and   substantially
arise   for   consideration,   inasmuch   as   without   the   finding
thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
As observed in clause (c) of paragraph 21 of the judgment cited
supra, if the matter  involves complicated questions of fact and
law   relating   to   title,   the   court   will   relegate   the   parties   to   the
remedy   by   way   of   comprehensive   suit   for   declaration   of   title,
instead   of   deciding   the   issue   in   the   suit   for   mere   injunction.
We   do   not   find   that   the   present   case   would   fall   in   exception
carved out in clause (d) in paragraph 21 of the judgment cited
supra   inasmuch   as   the   matter   involved   cannot   be   said   to   be
simple   and   straightforward   wherein   the   Court   would   decide
upon the issue regarding title, even in the suit for injunction.
20. It   will   also   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   following
observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Jharkhand   State
Housing Board v. Didar Singh and Another 2
:
2   (2019) 17 SCC 692
17

“ 11.   It is well settled by catena of judgments of this
Court   that   in   each   and   every   case   where   the
defendant  disputes   the   title   of   the  plaintiff  it  is   not
necessary   that   in   all   those   cases   plaintiff   has   to
seek   the   relief   of   declaration.   A   suit   for   mere
injunction   does   not   lie   only   when   the   defendant
raises   a   genuine   dispute   with   regard   to   title   and
when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff,
then   necessarily   in   those   circumstances,   plaintiff
cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”
21. Another   aspect   which   is   required   to   be   taken   into
consideration  is  that,  in  pursuance  to  the impugned judgment
and order, the appellant­plaintiff has already amended the suit
so   as   to   claim   a   relief   for   declaration   of   title.   A   consequential
amendment has also been made to the written statement by the
respondent­defendant.   In   that   view   of   the   matter,   it   will   be
appropriate   that   the   parties   get   their   right   adjudicated   with
regard to the declaration of title on merits.  We therefore find no
reason   to   interfere   with   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   of
the High Court.  
22. The appeals are therefore dismissed. However, taking into
consideration   the   fact   that   the   suit   is   pending   since   2003,   we
18

direct   the   learned   trial   court   to   try   and   decide   the   suit   as
expeditiously  as possible and  preferably  within  a  period of one
year  from   the  date  of  this  judgment.    Pending   application(s),  if
any, shall stand disposed of.  No order as to costs.
….…..….......................J.
    [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 07, 2021.
19