SC on Limits of Injunction Relief in Property Disputes

In S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors. v. D. Rajammal, the Supreme Court revisited a familiar yet legally intricate question: when can a plaintiff who admits not being in possession still obtain an injunction against interference in property disputes rooted in family inheritance?

What's The Matter?

The dispute originated within a Tamil Nadu family over 1.74½ acres of dry land, allegedly divided under a 1985 Will executed by Rangaswamy Naidu in favour of his children.

The plaintiff, Rajammal, claimed half the property based on the Will, asserting that her brother Munuswamy occupied it merely as a tenant.

The defendants, however, maintained that the property was ancestral and had been informally partitioned during their father’s lifetime, making them co-owners rather than tenants.

The trial court accepted the Will as proved and restrained the defendants from alienating or disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession. The first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the father could not have bequeathed ancestral property through a Will.

The High Court, in second appeal, restored the trial court’s decree, reaffirming the plaintiff’s ownership and granting both injunctions sought.

Before the Supreme Court, however, the matter took a more nuanced turn. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the Bench, noted that while the Will was legally proved, the plaintiff had not demonstrated actual possession.

Crucially, she had not sought a declaration of title or recovery of possession, which are essential when possession is admitted to lie with the opposing party.

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence contained categorical admissions that the defendants were residing in and cultivating the property.

An injunction simpliciter, therefore, could not be sustained where the foundational fact of possession was missing.

At the same time, the Court preserved an important equitable balance.

While disallowing the injunction against interference, it upheld the injunction against alienation of the property and granted liberty to both parties to initiate fresh proceedings seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession within three months. Until such proceedings are resolved, neither party is permitted to alienate or encumber the land.

The judgment is a reminder that injunctions cannot substitute for a declaration of ownership, especially when possession is disputed. Courts must avoid granting protective relief that effectively assumes ownership without formal adjudication. The ruling reaffirms the classic principle that title must precede possession and both must be proved before equitable relief is granted.

By emphasizing careful pleading, the Court also indirectly addressed a persistent issue in Indian property litigation the prevalence of loosely framed suits that confuse tenancy, co-ownership, and inheritance. This case illustrates how procedural precision is as vital as substantive right in securing judicial protection.