Injunction Without Possession Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Decree in Long-Running Land Dispute

Case Name: Lakhi Ram & Others v. Babu Ram (through LRs) & Another

Date of Judgment: 27.03.2026

Citation: RSA-893-1991

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The High Court held that a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable where there is a serious dispute regarding title and possession. Once the very basis of possession is nullified, no injunction can be granted.

Summary: The case arose out of a long-standing land dispute where the plaintiff sought permanent injunction claiming possession based on a mortgage deed and subsequent sale deed.

The record showed that the suit land was initially mortgaged and later sold in favour of the plaintiff. However, these transactions were challenged in an earlier civil suit filed by the son of the original owner, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 28.09.1984 .

The High Court closely examined this decree and noted that both the mortgage deed and sale deed in favour of the plaintiff were declared null and void. Importantly, the plaintiff himself was a party to the compromise and had made a statement consenting to the decree.

The Court observed that once these documents stood nullified, the very foundation of the plaintiff’s claim of possession ceased to exist. Despite this, the courts below had erroneously presumed possession in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court further noted that subsequent purchasers (defendants) had acquired the land through registered sale deeds and were in possession, as supported by revenue records placed on record.

A key legal issue addressed was the maintainability of a suit for permanent injunction. The Court held that where there is a serious dispute regarding title and possession, a simpliciter injunction suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff ought to have sought declaration and possession instead.

Relying on settled Supreme Court precedent, the Court emphasized that when title is under cloud and possession is disputed, injunction alone cannot be granted.

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and held that:

• The earlier decree had nullified the plaintiff’s title and possession claim.
• Findings of the courts below were perverse and contrary to record.
• A simpliciter suit for injunction was not maintainable in the facts of the case.

Accordingly, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs.