High Court Cannot Replace Mandatory Injunction Decree With Compensation When Plaintiff Never Claimed Money: Supreme Court

Case Name: Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 648

Date of Judgment/Order: 19 June 2026

Bench: S.V.N. Bhatti, J. and Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that a High Court, while deciding a second appeal, cannot set aside a decree for mandatory injunction directing removal of encroachment and substitute it with monetary compensation when the plaintiff never sought damages and did not consent to such substitution. The Court held that relief cannot be moulded by creating a new monetary claim in favour of a party against its own pleaded case, particularly where the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had concurrently decreed removal of the illegal construction. The Court further held that in a second appeal, interference must be strictly in accordance with Section 100 CPC and cannot be based on irrelevant considerations or without properly framing and deciding substantial questions of law.

Summary: The original plaintiff, Om Parkash, filed two civil suits against the defendants concerning illegal construction by the school authorities. In the first suit, he sought removal of a wall allegedly constructed on common open space beyond his house and a restraint against further construction. In the second suit, he sought removal of the lintel of the school building allegedly erected on the wall of his house. Both suits were decreed by the Trial Court, and the decrees were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. In second appeals, the Punjab and Haryana High Court initially converted the relief into payment of compensation and treated the wall as common, but the Supreme Court set aside that approach and remanded the matters because the High Court had not examined the merits or framed substantial questions of law. On remand, the High Court again reversed the decrees and directed the Executing Court to assess the value of construction so that the plaintiff’s legal heirs could be compensated. The Supreme Court found that the High Court repeated the same error, proceeded on a wrong factual premise that the wall was common, and imposed monetary relief despite there being no such prayer or consent.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals, set aside the common judgment dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 363 of 2008 and RSA No. 364 of 2008, and remanded both second appeals to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100 CPC. The Court held that since the second appeals had not been adjudicated on merits, the High Court must reconsider them independently and decide them on their own merits. Considering that the second appeals were of the year 2008, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to decide them expeditiously. There was no order as to costs.