Supreme Court Restores Trial Court’s Dismissal of Injunction Suit; Holds Plaintiff Failed to Establish Title or Identify Property After Acquisition Was Set Aside

Case Name: Obalappa & Others v. Pawan Kumar Bhihani & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1450
Date of Judgment/Order: 17 December 2025
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a serious error in reversing the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit for permanent injunction when the plaintiffs failed to establish title or clearly identify the suit property. The Court ruled that where the original allotment was founded on land acquisition proceedings that were subsequently quashed, and where the alleged rectification of survey numbers was made after two decades without justification, no injunction could be granted. The absence of proof of possession, non-compliance with conditions of allotment, and failure to establish the existence and location of the site disentitled the plaintiffs to equitable relief.

Summary: The respondents-plaintiffs claimed injunction over Site No.66 allegedly allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority pursuant to acquisition of land in Survey Nos.349/1 and 350/12. The acquisition itself was later set aside by the High Court, rendering the allotment vulnerable. While the suit was pending, the BDA executed a rectification deed changing the survey numbers to 350/9, 350/10 and 350/11. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs neither constructed a residential building within the stipulated period nor proved title or identification of the property, and that the rectification deed lacked credibility. The High Court reversed this decree by relying on an alleged survey report not proved in evidence. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings, documentary evidence, and conditions of allotment, and found clear inconsistencies and ambiguity regarding the suit property. It held that the High Court wrongly relied on an unproved survey conducted behind the defendants’ back, and that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving title, possession, and identification mandatory prerequisites for grant of permanent injunction.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court in first appeal, and restored the Trial Court’s decree dismissing the suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that no injunction could be granted in the absence of proof of title and proper identification of the suit property, and disposed of all pending applications accordingly.