Punjab & Haryana High Court dismisses appeal in property dispute, holds injunction cannot protect trespasser against true owner
Case Name: Babu Lal v. Manohar Lal & Ors.
Date of Judgment: October 01, 2025
Citation: RSA-1048-1999 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the regular second appeal filed by Babu Lal challenging reversal of a trial court decree of injunction. It upheld the first appellate court’s finding that the plaintiff failed to establish either ownership or possession of the property and that no injunction could be granted in favour of a trespasser against the lawful owner. The Court held that an injunction requires proof of lawful possession or identifiable title and cannot be invoked to perpetuate unlawful occupation.
Summary: The appellant Babu Lal had filed a suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain Manohar Lal and others from interfering with his alleged possession over land situated in village Hassanpur. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that though the plaintiff was not the owner, he was in possession, and defendants could not dispossess him except by due process of law. The first appellate court, however, reversed the decree, holding that the plaintiff failed to identify the suit land or prove possession, and that the property in question (Khasra No. 502/2) belonged to the defendants by virtue of Mutation No. 3109 dated 12.04.1990.
Justice Deepak Gupta, after reviewing the record, found that the plaintiff had not produced any documentary evidence or sought demarcation to establish the land’s identity. The court noted that old Khasra No. 1193 Min was allotted to Dyal Chand and later transferred to the defendants’ predecessors, who were recorded owners in possession of new Khasra No. 502/2. Citing the settled principle that injunction cannot protect a trespasser against a rightful owner, the court agreed with the appellate findings that the plaintiff had no legal right or identifiable title to the disputed property.
Decision: The High Court held that the first appellate court’s findings were factual, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and not perverse or illegal. It dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, affirming that an injunction cannot be granted to safeguard unlawful possession against a proven owner. No order as to costs was made.