Specific Relief Act | Suit For Mandatory Injunction Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable where there are serious disputes relating to title, possession, and identity of the property. The Court held that in such circumstances, the plaintiff must seek a comprehensive remedy by filing a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, rather than attempting to secure relief through a standalone injunction. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N. Kotiswar Singh upheld the Uttarakhand High Court's dismissal of the Appellant's Second Appeal, holding that a suit seeking a mandatory injunction simpliciter cannot be maintained without first exploring remedies for declaration of title and recovery of possession, particularly when the plaintiff's title to the property is disputed. A suit seeking mandatory injunction simpliciter was instituted by the Appellants against Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), seeking demolition of a boundary wall allegedly constructed by BHEL on their land. According to the Appellants, the wall obstructed their access to a public road from their property. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the wall. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these findings and dismissed the suit, holding that it was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA"), since a more efficacious remedy, namely, a suit for possession, was available. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.Section 41(h) of the SRA bars granting an injunction if a more effective legal remedy is available, meaning courts will refuse an injunction when relief, like a suit for possession, offers a simpler or more appropriate solution.Endorsing the High Court's view on Section 41(h) of SRA, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar held that when a defendant allegedly raises a structure on land claimed by the plaintiff, it amounts to trespass and dispossession, for which the most effective remedy is a suit for recovery of possession. Seeking demolition of the structure through a bare injunction suit was legally inadequate. “In the present case, as noticed hereinabove, there exists a serious dispute with regard to title, the question that arose was whether the plaintiffs had derived a valid and enforceable title from their predecessors-in-interest. Even assuming, arguendo, that the plaintiffs possess a valid title, the High Court has rightly held that where there is a construction raised on the disputed property alleged to be owned by the plaintiffs, the appropriate and efficacious remedy available to them was to institute a suit for possession along with a consequential relief of injunction, and not a suit for injunction simpliciter.”, the court observed. “Thus, upon applying the aforesaid principles, the High Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, inasmuch as the plaintiffs failed to seek the relief of possession despite the existence of a cloud over possession of the disputed property. The suit for injunction simpliciter was, therefore, not maintainable.”, the court added. In essence, the Court ruled that when the title of the plaintiff over the suit property is disputed, then, instead of claiming possession and seeking a declaration of title, it is impermissible for the plaintiff to file a simpliciter suit seeking a mandatory injunction. The appeal was dismissed. Cause Title: SANJAY PALIWAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTORCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 54Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.R.Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Tomar, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Adv. Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv.

Specific Relief Act | Suit For Mandatory Injunction Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Plaintiff's Title Is Disputed : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Where there is a construction raised on the disputed property, the appropriate remedy is a suit for possession.

Tags