Supreme Court Dismisses Civil Appeal in Land Ownership Dispute -- High Court's Ruling on Maintenance-Based Absolute Ownership Under Hindu Succession Act Upheld -- Plaintiff's Injunction and Recovery Claims Fail Due to Lack of Possession Proof and Deficient Pleadings

  • 21
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011 filed by plaintiff's legal representatives against High Court judgment allowing Second Appeal -- The case involved dispute over agricultural land where plaintiff sought perpetual injunction and alternatively recovery of possession -- The Trial Court initially dismissed suit, First Appellate Court allowed appeal, but High Court reversed in Second Appeal -- The Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision, holding that first defendant had acquired property in lieu of maintenance, which became absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- The Court found plaintiff failed to prove possession for injunction relief and had inadequate pleadings for recovery claim -- The judgment emphasises strict requirements for possession claims and broad application of Hindu Succession Act provisions for female Hindu property rights

Headnote

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal arising from High Court judgment in RSA No. 221 of 1998 -- The Appeal concerned suit for perpetual injunction and alternatively recovery of possession over agricultural land -- The High Court had allowed Second Appeal, holding that first defendant acquired property in lieu of maintenance, which ripened into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- The Supreme Court held that plaintiff failed to prove possession on date of filing suit, essential for perpetual injunction -- The Court also found pleadings for recovery of possession deficient, lacking specifics on entitlement, dispossession, and nature of defendant's possession -- Relying on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, the Court emphasised necessity of detailed pleadings in possession claims -- The High Court's findings on maintenance right and application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were upheld -- The Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration mentioned in the Judgment is whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of injunction and whether suit land was Joint Hindu family property given to Soma Devi for maintenance, making her full owner under Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal, upholding High Court judgment -- No order as to costs

2026 LawText (SC) (02) 20

Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011

2026-02-06

PANKAJ MITHAL J. , S.V.N. BHATTI J.

2026 INSC 133

Mr. Mohit D Ram, Mr. Govind Goel

Kanta and Others

Soma Devi (Dead) Through LR. and Others

Nature of Litigation: Civil suit for perpetual injunction and alternatively recovery of possession over agricultural land

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought perpetual injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession, and alternatively recovery of possession

Filing Reason

Threatened interference by defendants with plaintiff's possession and refusal to admit plaintiff's claim to suit land

Previous Decisions

Trial Court dismissed suit on 20.06.1992 -- First Appellate Court allowed appeal on 08.04.1998 -- High Court allowed Second Appeal on 24.07.2010

Issues

Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of injunction? Whether suit land was Joint Hindu family property given to Soma Devi for maintenance and she became its full owner in 1956 under Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant contended High Court erred in not recognising plaintiff's 1/6th share and should have entertained recovery of possession as defendant failed to prove maintenance claim Respondent argued plaintiff failed to prove possession and maintain recovery claim, with Trial Court and High Court correctly dismissing suit

Ratio Decidendi

For perpetual injunction, plaintiff must prove actual possession on date of filing suit -- For recovery of possession, pleadings must specifically include entitlement, manner of entitlement, date and mode of dispossession, and nature of defendant's illegal possession -- Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 broadly applies to female Hindu property acquisitions, converting limited maintenance interests into absolute ownership -- Detailed pleadings are essential in possession claims as per Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira

Judgment Excerpts

It is axiomatic that possession on the date of filing the suit is an essential requisite for granting perpetual injunction The High Court held that Soma Devi’s limited interest in the property acquired in lieu of maintenance automatically ripened into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Procedural History

Suit filed as CS No. 496 of 1990 before Sub Judge 1st Class, Una for perpetual injunction, later amended to include recovery of possession -- Trial Court dismissed suit on 20.06.1992 -- First Appellate Court allowed appeal as Civil Appeal No. 124/92, 213/94/92 on 08.04.1998 -- High Court allowed RSA No. 221 of 1998 on 24.07.2010 -- Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011 dismissed

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Heirs of Deceased in Motor Accident Clai...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Civil Appeal in Land Ownership Dispute -- High Court&#03...