Legal provisions involved: Principles relating to permanent injunction under civil law.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India.

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Facts

The plaintiffs filed a suit asking the court to stop the defendants from interfering with a site they claimed belonged to them. The trial court dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and could not clearly show where the site was located. The High Court later reversed this order and granted the injunction. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key legal provisions

For a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must clearly prove ownership and properly identify the property.

Issues raised

Whether an injunction be granted when the property is not clearly identified and ownership is not proved?

Arguments of the case

The defendants argued that the documents relied on by the plaintiffs were unclear and the site could not be identified on the ground. The plaintiffs relied on a rectification deed and a survey report.

Judgement

The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and could not clearly identify the site. It said the High Court wrongly relied on unclear documents and a survey done without proper proof. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the dismissal of the injunction suit.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.