Permanent injunction cannot survive a failed title challenge where the registered sale deed remains valid and limitation bars the claim.

A plaintiff who fails to secure cancellation of a registered sale deed and declaration of title cannot ordinarily sustain a permanent injunction against the true owner where the injunction claim is only consequential to the rejected title challenge. Once the registered deed is accepted and the defendant's title is recognised, possession cannot be protected by injunction against the true owner merely because the plaintiff is in alleged possession. The Court also treated the challenge as time-barred, noting deemed knowledge from the revenue record and the long-standing deed. Due process was satisfied by adjudication before a competent court, and the true owner was not required to file a separate possession suit before disturbing unlawful possession.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaintiff, having failed to obtain cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration of title, can still maintain a decree of permanent injunction to protect alleged possession against the true owner, and whether such relief is barred by limitation when the substantive title challenge is time-barred.

Analysis: The suit was primarily founded on the challenge to the registered sale deed and the claim of title, with injunction pleaded as relief linked to that challenge. The Court held that once the claim for cancellation and declaration failed and the defendant's title under the registered sale deed was accepted, the plaintiff could not seek to protect possession against the true owner by injunction. The Court further held that the injunction claim, in the facts of the case, was consequential to the failed declaratory relief and could not survive independently. Since the registered deed was of long standing and the plaintiff was deemed to have knowledge of the adverse title and possession through the revenue record, the challenge was held to be barred by limitation. The Court also held that due process of law was satisfied by adjudication before a competent court, and a party unsuccessful in injunction proceedings cannot insist that the true owner must file a separate suit for possession before disturbing unlawful possession.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owner, and the injunction decree could not be sustained.

---