A. INTRODUCTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Paliwal & Anr. v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.¹, reaffirmed the principles governing the maintainability of suits for mandatory injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”). The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision, and clarified that where there exists a cloud over ownership and possession of the immovable property, a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable, and is barred under Section 41(h) of the SRA.

B. FACTS OF THE CASE

The Appellants (Original Plaintiffs) are the partners of an unregistered firm, Vaishali Builders. On 06.01.1992, the Appellants purchased a land situated in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, through a registered sale deed executed by Laxminarayan Jha and Bashir Khan. Pursuant to the said purchase, the firm’s name was mutated in the revenue records, and the Appellants had continuous ownership and possession over the land.

The disputed land was bounded on the north, south, and west by lands belonging to the Respondent (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.), with a pucca public road on the east. The dispute arose when the Respondent, constructed a boundary wall along the said pucca road, which, according to the Appellants, obstructed their access to the road.

The Appellants claimed that access to the public road was necessary for the use and enjoyment of the suit land, and that the construction of the wall unlawfully interfered with their rights. Consequently, the Appellants instituted a Suit for a mandatory injunction before the trial court seeking removal of the boundary wall constructed by the Respondent.

C. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT AND THE LD. DISTRICT COURT

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Appellants on the following grounds:

• The Appellants were held to have established title and possession over the disputed land on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 06.01.1992. The Respondent’s claim of acquisition and exclusive possession was rejected, particularly due to the admissions made by the Respondent’s own witness who stated that possession of the land was never handed over to the Respondent.

• The objection under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (“IPA”) was rejected on the ground that the suit was not for enforcement of a contractual right but was a common law action for protection of property rights, rendering the statutory bar inapplicable.

• The Ld. Trial Court held that Appellants right to access to public road was essential for the effective use and enjoyment of the suit property. The obstruction caused by the construction of the boundary wall was held to constitute a continuing wrongful act. Accordingly, a decree for mandatory injunction was granted in favour of the Appellants directing the Respondent to remove the wall.

The Respondent thereafter preferred an Appeal before the Ld. District Court, which was dismissed, affirming the findings of the Ld. Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent filed a Second Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.

D. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

The Hon’ble High Court allowed the second Appeal, set aside the judgement and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court and dismissed the Appellants suit for Mandatory injunction on the following grounds:

• The Hon’ble High Court observed that the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court had failed to examine the nature and extent of title conveyed under the sale deed. The court observed that Bashir Khan, being a hereditary tenant, was not competent to transfer ownership rights, and therefore a valid title could not have passed to the Appellants.

• The Appellants failed to establish with precision and certainty of the specific portion of the boundary wall of the land allegedly purchased by the Appellants.

• With respect to the bar under section 69 of the IPA the Hon’ble High Court agreed with the findings of the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court and held that the suit was not barred merely because the partnership firm was unregistered.

• The Hon’ble High Court held that the suit for mandatory injunction was not maintainable in law. Referring to Section 41(h) of the SRA the Hon’ble Court concluded that there existed a cloud over the title and possession, and the proper and equally efficacious remedy available to the Appellants was a suit for recovery of possession with consequential relief of injunction and the Grant of a decree for injunction simpliciter was therefore held to be legally impermissible.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the Appellants preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

E. APPEAL BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

I. Issues Framed

The Hon’ble Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court dismissing the suit for mandatory injunction warranted interference by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

2. Whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

II. Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:

1. The Suit for mandatory injunction had been concurrently decreed by both the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court after a detailed appreciation of evidence establishing ownership and settled possession of the Appellants.

2. The Respondent neither had title nor possession over the disputed land, which was also supported by the Respondent’s own witness during cross-examination.

3. The Hon’ble High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of CPC, by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own findings on ownership and possession, despite the settled principle that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered during the Second Appeal.

4. The Hon’ble High Court erred in applying Section 41(h) of the SRA, as the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court had categorically held that the Appellants were already in rightful possession of the land.

5. Reliance was placed on the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh² and Jospeh Severance v. Benny Mathew³ to contend that a suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable without seeking for the possession of the property.

III. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent:

1. The Hon’ble High Court correctly decided substantial questions of law, particularly relating to the statutory bar under Section 41(h) of the SRA, and held that a suit for mandatory injunction without seeking possession was inherently flawed and not maintainable.

2. The Respondent further placed a strong reliance on Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy⁴, and contended that where there is cloud over both the title and possession of an immovable property, an injunction simpliciter is untenable.

3. The grounds raised by the Appellants were purely factual in nature and did not warrant interference of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

IV. Analysis & Findings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court undertook a balance approach to determine whether the Hon’ble High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court.

(i) Dispute as to title, possession and identity of the suit Land

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that from the inception of the dispute, there was a clear assertion and denial regarding the title of the land. The Appellants asserted their title over the disputed land whereas the Respondent expressly objected and consistently disputed the validity of the Sale deed.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the possession was equally in question, with the Respondent asserting its own possession and questioning the precise identity and location of the portion allegedly purchased by the Appellants. Although the existence of the boundary wall was admitted however, the exact location vis-a vis the Appellants land was contested.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted the Hon’ble High Court’s findings that while there existed a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs and Laxminarayan possessed a transferable title, however Bashir Khan, being a hereditary tenant, was not competent to transfer valid title to the Plaintiffs. [Para’ 12 and 13]

(ii) Maintainability of a Suit for Mandatory Injunction

Interpreting Section 41(h) of the SRA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that injunction must be refused where the plaintiff has an equally efficacious alternative remedy. The expression “equally efficacious” was construed to mean a remedy which would place the Plaintiffs in the same position in which he would have been had the relief of injunction not been sought.

Applying this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an alleged illegal construction amounts to trespass and dispossession, the proper and efficacious remedy is a suit for recovery of possession with or without consequential injunction, and not a suit confined solely to mandatory injunction. Consequently, such a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is barred under Section 41(h) of the SRA. [Para’ 15 and 16]

(iii) Scope of Interference Under Section 100 CPC by the Hon’ble High Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that interference with the concurrent findings under Section 100 of CPC is impermissible. However, this restraint does not apply where the findings are vitiated by errors of Law, or misapplication of settled legal principles. In the present case the Hon’ble High Court’s did not re-appreciate the evidence but gave rise to substantial questions of law including:

• the maintainability of a suit for mandatory injunction,

• the statutory bar under Section 41(h) of the SRA, and

• the failure of the Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. District Court to examine disputes regarding the title, possession, and identity of the suit property. [Para’26]

(iv) Judicial Precedents

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sant Lal Jain vs. Avtar Singh and Jospeh Severance v. Benny Mathew is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In both the cases, the Defendant entered the premise as a licensee and the relationship between the parties was admitted, and conclusively established, hence there existed no cloud with regard to title or the identity of the property.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter referred to the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, and reiterated the position for injunction suits by applying the principles laid down in the judgement:

(i) Where title and possession are disputed, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable.

(ii) Where the Plaintiff fails to establish settled possession and title is under a cloud, the appropriate remedy is a suit for declaration, possession, and consequential injunction.

(iii) Where the Plaintiff is in possession, but title is disputed, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title, the Plaintiff must seek for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.

F. CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment, holding that a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is barred under Section 41(h) of the SRA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the decision in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy and clarified that the proper remedy in such cases is a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, and not a standalone injunctive relief. This judgment reinforces that injunctive relief cannot be used as a substitute for a suit for possession, and that courts must insist on proper civil remedies where foundational rights are in dispute.

Analysis by: Shubhangi Dengre (Associate)

---

¹ 2026 INSC 61 | Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016
² (1985) 2 SCC 332.
³ (2005) 7 SCC 667
⁴ [(2008) 4 SCC 594]