Sanjay Paliwal And Another Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Mandatory Injunction Not Maintainable Where Title, Possession & Identity Are Disputed: Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Suit
The Supreme Court (Judgment dated 15 January 2026) dismissed the civil appeal and affirmed the High Court’s reversal of concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, holding that a suit for mandatory injunction simpliciter is not maintainable when there exists a serious dispute regarding title, possession, and identity of the property, and an equally efficacious remedy of a suit for possession is available under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
In the present case, the plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction for removal of a boundary wall allegedly obstructing access to their land, without claiming possession or declaration of title. The Supreme Court noted that:
- The defendant seriously disputed the plaintiffs’ title, particularly the extent of transferable rights flowing from a sale deed executed partly by a Maurusee Kashtkar (hereditary tenant).
- There was a clear dispute regarding possession of the disputed land.
- The exact identity and location of the land and wall were not conclusively established, with inconsistencies in the commissioner’s report, khasra numbers, and absence of measurements (pages 6–7, 20 of the judgment).
Distinguishing Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew, the Court held that those cases apply only where the defendant’s possession is permissive (licensee) and there is no cloud over title or possession. Relying on the settled principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, the Court reiterated that where title is under a cloud or possession is disputed, the proper remedy is a comprehensive suit for declaration and possession, not an injunction simpliciter.
The Supreme Court further held that the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, as the concurrent findings were vitiated by errors of law, misapplication of settled principles, and absence of foundational evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
