2021 INSC 0398
1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5577  OF 2021
[@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.10621 of 2020]
T.V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M. MALLAPPA & ANR.       .... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T  
B.R. GAVAI, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
2. By   the   present   appeal,   the   appellant­plaintiff
challenges   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned
single   judge   of   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   at   Bengaluru
dated 19.3.2020 in R.F.A. No. 123 of 2012 thereby allowing
the   appeal   filed   by   the   respondent   No.1   –   M.   Mallappa
(defendant No.2) herein. 

2
3. The   facts,   in   brief,   giving   rise   to   the   present
appeal are as under:
The   plaintiff­appellant   before   this   Court   filed   a
suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the defendants
restraining   them   or   anybody   claiming   through   them   from
interfering   with   the   plaintiff’s   peaceful   possession   and
enjoyment of the suit property.  
It   is   the   case   of   the   plaintiff­appellant   that   he   is
the   absolute   owner   in   possession   of   the   suit   schedule
property.     His   case   is   that   he   has   purchased   the   suit
schedule   property   from   one   Shri   K.P.   Govinda   Reddy
through registered sale deed dated 13.4.1992 and thereafter
he   is   in   peaceful   possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   suit
property.   According to him, he has constructed compound
wall   of   8   ft.   height   with   hallow   bricks.     His   further   case   is
that he has constructed a house on the said plot and being
a   civil   contractor,   is   using   the   same   for   storing   building
materials.     It   is   his   further  case   that   he   has   taken   loan   by
depositing   the   title   deed   of   the   suit   property.     It   is   his
further   case   that   since   the   defendants   attempted   to

3
demolish   the   compound   wall   and   did   not   pay   heed   to   the
plaintiff’s request, he was required to file a suit.  
The   claim   of   the   plaintiff­appellant   is   resisted   by
defendant   No.1   (respondent   No.2   herein)   –   The   Bangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA’)
by   filing   written  statement.     It  is  the   defendant   No.1’s  case
that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under
Section   64   of   the   Bangalore   Development   Authority   Act,
1976.     It   is   its   further   case   that   the   khata   issued   in   the
name   of   the   plaintiff­appellant   is   only   a   revenue   entry   and
does not confer any right, title or interest upon the plaintiff­
appellant over the suit property.
The   defendant   No.2­M.   Mallappa   (respondent
No.1   herein)   also   resisted   the   claim   of   the   plaintiff­
appellant.     It   is   his   case   that   he   had   purchased   the   suit
property   through   registered   sale­deed   dated   5.4.1984   from
one   M.   Shivalingaiah.     It   is   his   case   that   since   the   date   of
purchase,   he   was   in   peaceful   possession   and   enjoyment   of
the   suit   schedule   property.     It   is   his   further   case   that   the
vendor   of   the   plaintiff­appellant   had   no   right,   title   and

4
interest   to   sell   the   suit   schedule   property   in   favour   the
plaintiff.     It   is   his   case   that   entire   Survey   No.37
admeasuring 1 acre 29 guntas belonged to undivided family
of   M.   Shivalingaiah   and   upon   partition,   the   entire   land   in
the said Survey number came to be allotted to the share of
M.   Shivalingaiah.     It   is   his   case   that   M.   Shivalingaiah   had
sold   plots   in   the   said   Survey   number   to   different   persons
and the suit property was sold to him.  It is his further case
that he had made an application to B.D.A. for reconveyance
since   the   plot   was   under   reconveyance   scheme.     It   is   his
case that compound wall was put up by him.
On   the   basis   of   the   rival   pleadings,   the   learned
trial judge framed the following issues:
“1. Does   the   plaintiff   prove   his   lawful
possession of the suit property as on the
date of the suit?
2. Does   he   prove   this   alleged
interference by the defendants?
3. Is   he   entitled   to   a   decree   of
permanent   injunction   against
defendants?”

5
All   the   issues   came   to   be   answered   in   favour   of
the   plaintiff­appellant   and   the   suit   came   to   be   decreed   as
prayed for. 
Being   aggrieved   thereby,   defendant   No.2   i.e.
respondent No.1 herein filed Regular First Appeal before the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. 
The   learned   single   judge   of   the   Karnataka   High
Court found that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the   suit   simpliciter   for   permanent   injunction   without
seeking   a   declaration   of   title   was   not   tenable   and   as   such,
allowed the appeal and set aside the decree. 
Being   aggrieved   thereby,   the   present   appeal   by
way of special leave.
4. We   have   heard   Shri   Ajit   Bhasme,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   plaintiff­appellant,  Shri
Basava   Prabhu   S.   Patil,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing
on behalf of respondent No.1 (defendant No.2) and Shri S.K.
Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BDA.
5. Shri   Ajit   Bhasme,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the  plaintiff­appellant  would  submit

6
that   the   learned   single   judge   of   the   Karnataka   High   Court
has   grossly   erred   in   interfering   with   the   well­reasoned
judgment and order of the   learned   trial court.   The learned
Senior   Counsel   would   further   submit   that   the   learned   trial
Court   relying   upon   the   voluminous   documentary   evidence
produced on record by the plaintiff­appellant has found the
appellant   to   be   in   peaceful   possession   and   rightly   decreed
the suit.   Relying on the judgment and order of the  learned
single   judge   of   the   Karnataka   High   Court   dated   10.2.2000
in   Writ   Petition   No.38853   of   1999,   the   learned   Senior
Counsel submitted that possession of the plaintiff­appellant
has been found to be lawful by the High Court and as such,
another   learned   single   judge   of   the   Karnataka   High   Court
has grossly erred in reversing the judgment and order of the
learned  trial court decreeing the suit.  
6. Shri   Basava   Prabhu   S.   Patil,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   No.1
(defendant   No.2),   on   the   contrary,   would   submit   that   the
learned  single judge of the Karnataka High Court has rightly
held   that   the   issue   involved   had   to   be   first   decided   on   the

7
basis of title and until the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of
title is decided, the suit simpliciter for permanent injunction
was not tenable.  
7. Shri   Basava   Prabhu   S.   Patil,   learned   Senior
Counsel,   would   further   submit   that   the   sale­deed   of   the
defendant   No.2   was   dated   5.4.1984   whereas   the   sale­deed
on   which   plaintiff­appellant   claimed   was   dated   13.4.1992.
He therefore would submit that no interference is warranted
in the present appeal.  
8. The   short   question   that   falls   for   consideration
before us is:
Whether   the   learned   single   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? 
9. The   issue   is   no   more   res   integra .     The   position
has been crystalised by this Court in the case of   Anathula
Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and others 1
in paragraph 21, which read thus:
1  (2008) 4 SCC 594

8
“ 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 posses ­
sion, 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 posses ­
sion   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   in ­
junction   will   be   decided   with   reference   to
the   finding   on   possession.   But   in   cases
where   de   jure   possession   has   to   be   estab ­
lished   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   appro ­
priate   issue   regarding   title   (either   specific,
or   implied   as   noticed   in   Annaimuthu   The ­
var   [ 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 ren ­
der a finding on a question of title, in a suit

9
for injunction. Even where there are neces ­
sary   pleadings   and   issue,   if   the   matter   in ­
volves   complicated   questions   of   fact   and
law   relating   to   title,   the   court   will   relegate
the   parties   to   the   remedy   by   way   of   com ­
prehensive   suit   for   declaration   of   title,   in ­
stead   of   deciding   the   issue   in   a   suit   for
mere injunction.
( d )   Where   there   are   necessary   pleadings
regarding title, and appropriate issue relat ­
ing   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   excep ­
tion to the normal rule that question of title
will   not   be   decided   in   suits   for   injunction.
But   persons   having   clear   title   and   posses ­
sion   suing   for   injunction,   should   not   be
driven   to   the   costlier   and   more   cumber ­
some   remedy   of   a   suit   for   declaration,
merely   because   some   meddler   vexatiously
or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to en ­
croach upon his property. The court should
use its discretion carefully to identify cases
where   it   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.”
10. 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

10
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.  
11. 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   the   normal   rule   that   question   of   title   will
not be decided in suits for injunction. 
12. In   this   background,   we   will   have   to   consider   the
facts of the present case.
13. The   plaintiff­appellant   claims   to   be   the   owner   of
the   suit   property   on   the   basis   of   a   sale­deed   executed   by
one   K.P.   Govinda   Reddy   in   his   favour   on   13.4.1992.     In
turn,   according   to   him,   the   said   property   was   sold   by   one
Smt. Varalakshmamma in favour of his vendor K.P. Govinda
Reddy on 26.3.1971.   He claims that he had mortgaged the

11
suit   property   for   taking   loan   from   one   financial   institution.
He further claimed that an endorsement was also issued by
the   Corporation   of   City   of   Bangalore   that   Khata   regarding
the suit property is transferred to the appellant.   According
to   the   plaintiff­appellant,   when   the   Bangalore   Mahanagar
Palike withdrew the Khata in his favour, he went to the High
Court and succeeded therein.  
14. Per   contra,   the   defendant   No.2   (respondent   No.1
herein)   is   specifically   denying   the   title   of   the   plaintiff­
appellant.  He claims to be the owner of the suit property on
the   basis   of   a   sale­deed   dated   5.4.1984   from   one   M.
Shivalingaiah.   He   also   claims   to   be   in   peaceful   possession
and   enjoyment   of   the   same   on   the   basis   of   the   said   sale­
deed.  It is his case that K.P. Govinda Reddy got the title set
up falsely  and created fabricated documents with  regard to
possession.     It   is   also   his   case   that   compound   wall   was
constructed by him and not by the plaintiff, as claimed. 
15. It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   that   this   is   not   a
case where the plaintiff­appellant can be said to have a clear
title   over   the   suit   property   or   that   there   is   no   cloud   on

12
plaintiff­appellant’s   title   over   the   suit   property.     The
question   involved   is   one   which   requires   adjudication   after
the   evidence   is   led   and   questions   of   fact   and   law   are
decided. 
16. In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   do   not   find   any
reason   to   interfere   with   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by
the Karnataka High Court.  
17. Insofar as the reliance on the order passed by the
learned   single   judge   of   the   Karnataka   High   Court   dated
10.2.2000 in Writ Petition No.38853 of 1999 is concerned, it
will   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   following   observations   made
therein:
“3. It  is  evident   from   the   plain   reading
of   the   above   that   any   entry   made   in   the
Corporation   Register   by   fraud,
misrepresentation   or   suppression   of   facts
or   by   furnishing   false,   incorrect   and
incomplete   material   could   be   corrected
within a period of three years from the date
of such recording.  The Order in the instant
case   was   passed   admittedly   much   beyond
the   period   of   limitation   prescribed   by   the
provision   extracted   above.     The   same   is
therefore   unsustainable   on   that   ground
itself.   The parties being in litigation before
the   Civil   Court   could   upon   adjudication   of
the   controversy   regarding   the   title   to   the

13
property   approach   the   Corporation   for   any
modification in the entry which is no more
any   modification   in   the   entry   which   is   no
more   than   a   fiscal   entry   relevant   only   for
purpose   of   payment   of   taxes   and   does   not
by   itself   create   or   extinguish   title   to   the
property in regard to which it is made.  Till
such   time   the   competent   Court   declared
the 3 rd
  respondent as the true owner of the
property,   the   Corporation   could   not   on   its
own   correct   the   entry   after   a   period   of   3
years   stipulated   under   Sec.   114­A   of   the
Act.  
4. This   writ   petition   accordingly
succeeds   and   is   hereby   allowed.     The
impugned   order   shall   stand   quashed
reserving liberty for the parties to have the
matter adjudicated upon by the Civil Court
and to approach the Corporation for a fresh
entry/modification   of   the   existing   entry   to
bring   the   same   in   consonance   with   the
Civil Court’s determination.  No costs.”
18. It could thus be clearly seen that the High Court
in   the   said   order   has   clearly   noted   that   the   parties   are   in
litigation   before   the   Civil   Court   and   that   adjudication   of
controversy regarding the title of the suit property could be
done   only   by   the   Civil   Court.     The   entry   with   the
Corporation   is   nothing   more   than   a   fiscal   entry   relevant
only   for   the   purpose   of   payment   of   taxes   and   does   not   by
itself   create   or   extinguish   title   to   the   property.     The   Court

14
observed   that   till   such   time   the   competent   Court   declared
the   third   respondent   therein   as   the   true   owner   of   the
property,   the   Corporation   could   not   on   its   own   correct   the
entry after a period of 3 years stipulated under Section 114­
A   of   the   Act.     The   High   Court   has   therefore   set   aside   the
order   reserving   liberty   for   the   parties   to   have   the   matter
adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. 
19. In that view of the matter, the said judgment and
order  would be of no assistance to the case of the plaintiff­
appellant.  
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
:
“ 11.   It   is   well   settled   by   catena   of   judg ­
ments 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   circum ­
2  (2019) 17 SCC 692

15
stances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for
bare injunction.”
21. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said
at  this  stage  that  the   dispute  raised  by  the  defendant  No.2
with regard to title is not genuine nor can it be said that the
title   of   the   plaintiff­appellant   over   the   suit   property   is   free
from   cloud.   The   issue   with   regard   to   title   can   be   decided
only   after   the   full­fledged   trial   on   the   basis   of   the   evidence
that   would   be   led   by   the   parties   in   support   of   their   rival
claims. 
22. In   the   result,   the  appeal   is   without   merit   and   as
such, dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs. 
…….…....................., J.
                             [L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….…....................., J.
                                                 [B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 07, 2021