Trial Court Can't Order Permanent Injunction In Title Suit Without Granting Recovery Of Possession As Consequential Relief: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (January 14) quashed a trial court order in a title suit, observing that the court had erred in passing decree of permanent injunction without granting consequential relief of recovery of possession to the plaintiff despite holding that the land was encroached upon by the defendant.

The bench of Justice Vivek Jain observed;

"Court had already arrived at a finding that the defendant has encroached upon the land and proceeded to record in the judgment that the defendant is required to handover the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff but surprisingly, without mentioning in the decree the relief of recovery of possession, the trial Court only passed a decree of permanent injunction though permanent injunction should have been consequential to recovery of possession. There is a clear error in the decree whereby the trial has skipped to record in the decree the recovery of possession though in the judgment the trial court categorically arrived at a finding that the defendant has encroached upon the land and the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of possession".

The petitioner-plaintiff filed a revision plea challenging the Trial Court order wherein it finalized the decree and subsequently signed it while rejecting the plaintiff's application under Section 152 CPC for amendment of the decree.

Per the plaintiff, he had filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, seeking a permanent injunction. The Trial Court framed six issues, including issue 2 relating to the encroachment of land by the defendant and the consequential issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to relief of possession recovery.

The bench observed that the substantive part of the Trial Court judgment held that the respondent-defendants had encroached on the land and that the petitioner was entitled to recover the same.

However, when the draft decree was proposed, the Trial Court did not frame any decree concerning the recovery of possession. The Trial Court passed an order of permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land despite concluding that the defendant had encroached upon the land.

The bench held that the Trial Court should have recorded in the judgment that the defendant was required to hand over the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff. However, "surprisingly", the Trial Court only passed a permanent injunction decree without mentioning the decree for the relief of recovery of possession.

The court also observed that the Trial Court rejected the plaintiff's objections under Section 152 of CPC regarding the said decree, noting it to be not maintainable. The bench held

"Irrespective of the position that once the decree had not been finally signed then whether objections under Section 152 were maintainable or not, but once the trial Court had been pointed out with the position that despite noting in the judgment that the petitioner is entitled to recovery of possession, then in the decree recovery of possession was not mentioned, then the trial Court should have woken up to this anomaly and it was not required of the trial Court to have mechanically signed the decree by holding that Section 152 CPC is not made out".

Since the decree was signed, the bench held that the objections under Section 152 CPC were maintainable. Therefore, the Trial Court was directed to pass a specific order under Section 152 CPC within 30 days. The Trial Court was also directed to ensure that the decree be in accordance with the judgment.

Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Tiwari v Smt Chinti Yadav [CR-1364-2025]

For Petitioner: Advocate Atul Kumar Pathak

For State: Advocate Amit Mishra

Click here to read/download the Order