Summary
The plaintiff’s challenge to a registered sale and claim of title had failed finally, but the courts protected her asserted possession by permanent injunction against the purchaser. The Supreme Court held that the injunction was consequential on the failed title claim in this suit. The purchaser’s ownership had been adjudicated, and the plaintiff established no lawful entitlement to remain. Judicial determination in her own suit satisfied the relevant recourse-to-law requirement. The injunction was set aside and the entire suit dismissed.
Issues
- Whether permanent injunction could survive the final rejection of the plaintiff’s cancellation and title claims.
- Whether the injunction claim was independent or consequential for limitation and relief.
- Whether the purchaser had to commence a fresh suit despite the existing adjudication of rights.
Held
- The refusal to cancel the sale deed or declare title in the plaintiff’s favour was not appealed and had become final. The purchaser was therefore the adjudicated owner, rather than a person whose competing title remained unresolved. (¶¶ 6-7, 9-9.3)
- In this suit, cancellation and declaration were the substantive reliefs and the injunction was consequential. The plaintiff could not preserve that injunction after the substantive claim failed; the limitation conclusion also followed that relationship. This differed from an independent injunction claim based on a fresh interference with lawful possession. (¶¶ 8.3, 11-11.1)
- The accepted sale deed recorded delivery of the entire property, and the purchaser’s longstanding revenue entries as owner and cultivator supported the Court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s position. Even assuming her possession, no lawful entitlement to protect it against the adjudicated owner was established. (¶¶ 8-8.2, 9, 10-11)
- Due process did not invariably require a second suit brought by the owner. The parties’ rights had already been adjudicated in the plaintiff’s own protective action, satisfying the recourse-to-law requirement in these circumstances. The Court did not authorise forcible self-help without judicial adjudication. (¶ 12-12.1)
- The permanent-injunction decree and its affirmations were set aside. With the cancellation and declaration claims already rejected, the entire suit stood dismissed without costs. (¶ 13-14)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. The permanent-injunction decree and the appellate judgments affirming it were set aside, and the plaintiff’s entire suit stood dismissed.