Summary
The plaintiffs sued in Madhya Pradesh for a declaration of title and a permanent injunction, relying on a 1967 registered sale deed and, alternatively, on adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit. The first appellate court rejected title under the sale deed but decreed title by adverse possession with an injunction. In second appeal, the High Court held that ownership under a sale deed and adverse possession are contradictory pleas and answered the adverse-possession question for the defendant. It still upheld the decree, because the plaintiffs were in possession. The Supreme Court allowed the defendant's appeal. Once every court had rejected title under the sale deed and the adverse-possession plea had failed, the plaintiffs' alleged possession could not be protected by a permanent injunction. The trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.
Issues
- Whether a permanent injunction protecting the plaintiffs' possession could be granted after their claims to title under a sale deed and by adverse possession had both failed.
Held
- The plea of ownership under a sale deed and the plea of adverse possession are contrary to each other and cannot be taken together. (¶ 5)
- Where title under the sale deed is negated by all the courts and the substantial question on adverse possession is answered against the plaintiffs, their alleged possession cannot be protected by a decree of permanent injunction; the High Court erred in nevertheless dismissing the second appeal. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the suit restored; no costs.