Mandatory Injunction Not Automatic Even If Encroachment Proved; Can Be Denied For Plaintiff's Unfair Conduct: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even where a demarcation report clearly establishes encroachment, grant of mandatory injunction is not automatic. Emphasising the equitable nature of such relief, the Court ruled that it may be denied where the plaintiff's conduct is found to be unfair or based on false pleadings. The Court remarked that injunction being a discretionary remedy under the Specific Relief Act, a party cannot claim it as a matter of right merely on proof of encroachment.Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that:“Therefore, the learned Courts below had rightly declined the discretionary relief of mandatory injunction after finding that the conduct of the plaintiff was not fair and he had resorted to falsehood. The Courts were not bound to grant the relief even if the demarcation report proved the encroachment made by the defendants. Hence, this substantial question of law is answered accordingly.” Background:The dispute concerned land situated in District Solan, where the plaintiff sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from raising construction. It was alleged that the defendants had encroached upon joint land and constructed a kitchen without proper demarcation.The defendants contended that the construction in question was not recent but had existed for a long period, thereby negating the plaintiff's allegations of fresh encroachment. They asserted that the structure had been raised pursuant to a prior family arrangement between the parties, under which the portion of land had fallen to their share. They further argued that the plaintiff had approached the Court after an inordinate delay despite having knowledge of the construction, and therefore, the suit was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.The Court noted that the construction was completed much earlier than alleged by the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination that the defendant had completed the construction in the year 1994. The Court observed that the plaintiff had made incorrect averments by claiming that construction was raised in 1998, despite clear evidence to the contrary. This contradiction was treated as a serious defect affecting entitlement to relief.The Court stated that no party can claim a relief of injunction as a matter of right, and the court has a discretion to refuse the grant of an injunction in suitable cases.Thus, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Case Name: Ravinder and others V/s Varinder and othersCase No.: RSA No.327 of 2008Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mandatory Injunction Not Automatic Even If Encroachment Proved; Can Be Denied For Plaintiff's Unfair Conduct: HP High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags