Cloud over title requires declaratory relief; permanent injunction alone was not maintainable on these facts.

A bare suit for permanent injunction is not barred in every case where title is disputed, but where the defendant raises a genuine and substantial dispute creating a cloud over the plaintiff's title, declaratory relief is required and injunction alone will not suffice. On the facts, the defendant's reliance on land acquisition proceedings and possession materials created such a cloud, so the plaintiff should have sought declaration of title before claiming injunction. The decree for permanent injunction alone was therefore unsustainable, and the courts below erred in granting it.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when the defendant disputes the plaintiff's title and raises a genuine cloud over such title.

Analysis: A bare injunction suit is not barred merely because title is disputed in every case. Where the defendant raises a genuine and substantial dispute concerning title, thereby creating a cloud over the plaintiff's title, the plaintiff must seek declaratory relief and cannot rest on injunction alone. On the facts, the defendant-board relied on land acquisition proceedings and possession materials sufficient to create such a cloud, so the plaintiff ought to have sought declaration of title before claiming injunction.

Conclusion: The suit for permanent injunction alone was not maintainable and the courts below erred in decreeing it.

---