Legal provisions involved: Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti.

Facts

The case relates to agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh. Sham Sunder filed a suit in 1990 claiming that he was the owner and in possession of the land and sought a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from interfering. Later, he also asked for recovery of possession. The defendant claimed she was in possession of the land after it was given to her by her father-in-law for maintenance following her husband’s death.

Key legal provisions

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Issues raised

Whether a permanent injunction can be granted without proving possession on the date of filing the suit?

Whether the plaintiff properly pleaded a case for recovery of possession?

Arguments of the case

The plaintiff relied on ownership and revenue records. The defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to prove possession and lacked proper pleadings for recovery.

Judgement

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must prove actual possession on the date of filing. Since this was not proved and proper pleadings were missing, the suit failed.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.