Bare injunction suits over immovable property fail where title is seriously disputed and declaration becomes necessary.

A bare suit for prohibitory injunction over immovable property lies only when the plaintiff is in lawful possession and title is not under serious cloud; where title is disputed, the proper course is declaration of title with consequential relief. On the facts, the property was a vacant site and the plaintiffs' claim rested on disputed assertions of oral gift, ostensible ownership and section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, while the defendant traced title to the original owner, so declaration and injunction were required. In second appeal under section 100 CPC, the High Court could not decide title beyond the pleadings and issues, and its interference on that basis was held impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) when a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property can be maintained without seeking declaration of title; (ii) whether, on the facts, the plaintiffs ought to have sued for declaration of title and injunction; (iii) whether the High Court, in second appeal, could examine and decide title in the absence of pleadings and issues on that question.

Issue (i): When the plaintiff is in lawful possession and faces interference, an injunction simpliciter lies. Where the plaintiff is out of possession, possession must be sought. Where title is disputed or under a cloud, declaration of title and consequential relief are necessary. In the case of vacant land, possession may follow title, but title can be examined only if the issue is simple and properly pleaded; if title involves complicated questions or has not been put in issue, the suit for bare injunction is not the proper vehicle for adjudicating title.

Conclusion: A bare injunction suit is maintainable only where possession alone is in dispute and title is not under a serious cloud.

Issue (ii): The suit property was a vacant site. The plaintiffs claimed through a vendor who had no title deed, no mutation in her favour, and no established possession, while the defendant traced title to the admittedly original owner shown in the municipal records. The plaintiffs' case depended on disputed factual assertions of oral gift, ostensible ownership, estoppel and the protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, all of which raised complicated questions of fact and law. In such circumstances, the proper remedy was a comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential relief.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs ought to have sought declaration of title and injunction, not merely an injunction.

Issue (iii): In second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court could not embark upon a roving enquiry into title, especially when title was neither pleaded nor made the subject of any issue. Questions based on oral gift and section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, did not arise from the pleadings and could not be formulated or decided as substantial questions of law in the injunction suit. The High Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the first appellate court on findings of title.

Conclusion: The High Court could not decide title in second appeal on the pleadings and issues as they stood.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the suit for bare injunction was dismissed, leaving the parties free to pursue appropriate declaratory relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for bare injunction relating to vacant immovable property, title may be incidentally examined only if it is clearly pleaded and arises from proper issues; where title is seriously disputed and involves complex questions, the court must relegate the parties to a suit for declaration and consequential relief, and a second appellate court cannot decide such title questions beyond the pleadings and issues.

---