Supreme Court holds injunction cannot be granted without declaration when possession is with defendant in property dispute

Case Name: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal
Date of Judgment: October 07, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1197, Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 18943 of 2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Held: The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by setting aside the grant of injunction against interference with possession, holding that an injunction simpliciter cannot be granted when possession is admitted to be with the defendant and no prayer for declaration of title or recovery of possession has been sought. However, it upheld the injunction restraining alienation of the property and reserved liberty to both parties to institute fresh proceedings for declaration of title and consequential possession.

Summary: The dispute arose between siblings over 0.87 acres of land out of 1.74 acres originally owned by Rangaswamy Naidu. The plaintiff claimed ownership on the strength of a Will executed by the father in 1985, while the defendant (her brother) asserted rights as a co-owner and occupier. The trial court found the Will proved and decreed injunctions against alienation and interference. The first appellate court reversed, holding that the land was joint family property and the Will invalid. The High Court restored the trial court’s decree in second appeal, recognizing the plaintiff’s title through the Will.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants (legal heirs of the defendant) argued that possession was always with the defendant, admitted by the plaintiff, and that without seeking declaration or possession, no injunction could be granted. They also relied on earlier arrangements and the plaintiff’s admissions. The plaintiff maintained that the Will established title and that tenancy arrangements were recognized earlier.

The Court examined the evidence and noted that the plaintiff herself admitted the defendant’s possession, and that neither side had sought a declaration of ownership or partition. It held that though the Will was proved, ownership remained clouded and possession was not with the plaintiff. Therefore, the injunction against interference could not be sustained, though the injunction against alienation remained valid.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that the ill-drafted plaint and admissions of the plaintiff restricted the relief that could be granted. It set aside the injunction against interference with possession but maintained the injunction restraining alienation. Both parties were given liberty to file fresh proceedings for declaration of title and possession within three months, which would be decided independently of the findings in the present case. The appeal was thus disposed of.