Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Once the Court has found that the plaintiffs possession is wrongful, it immediately followed that such possession is not entitled to protection by an injunction, because such an order will be only assisting the plaintiffs in their wrongful possession. No Court ,can by its own order help a party who is found to be in wrongful possession as against the lawful owner. The fact that if the lawful owner were to institute a suit, he might possibly fail on the ground that he was not in possession within 12 years of suit, could make no difference and that cannot be a proper justification for the issue of an injunction virtually maintaining or advancing the wrongful act of the plaintiff. (vide Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar ). When there is a finding recorded in a regular suit which has been affirmed in second appeal by the Court to the effect that the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the property and it is not contended in the second round of litigation that the earlier litigation is a nullity for want of jurisdiction, no Court will be justified in granting .a temporary injunction on an interlocutor application. The question of balance of convenience or equity does not arise when there is as stated earlier a concluded finding, as between the parties that the plaintiffs arc not in lawful possession. If the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession, they cannot seek an order of interim injunction. (vide City Municipal Council, Shimoga v. Laxminarayana Tiwari (1977) 2 Kant U 489)." (Underlining is mine).

24. A similar principle has been laid down in Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar . It has been stated on p. 150 as:-

"I am wholly unable to accept this contention. The question in the present suit is not whether the first defendant has a subsisting title. Once the lower appellate court found that the plaintiffs' possession is wrongful, it immediately followed that such possession is not entitled to protection by an injunction, because such an order will be only assisting the plaintiffs in their wrongful possession. No court can by its own order help a party who is found to be in wrongful possession as against the lawful owner. The fact that if the lawful owner were to institute a suit, he might possibly fail on the ground that he was not in possession within 12 years of suit, could make no difference and that cannot, in my opinion, be a proper justification for the issue of an injunction virtually maintaining or advancing the wrongful act of the plaintiffs."

The learned Judge of the Kerala High Court in para 5 has stated as : -

"The dictum so laid down fell to be considered by two Division Bench's of this Court in Alavi v. Mohammedkutty Haji and Narayana Menon v. KallandL Nambiyar J., as he then was, referring to observed as follows :-
"We find nothing in these decisions to support the broad principle contended for by the counsel for the respondents that a person in possession even if it be wrongful, is not entitled to an injunction against the true owner till his possession is lawfully terminated by due process of law."
Thus the principle laid down in the said Supreme Court case is absolutely clear on the point that the plaintiff s possession had to be protected against interference by some one, who was not proved to have a better title than himself to the suit property. Therefore the only thing that can be inferred from this principle is that if the plaintiff's possession is unlawful or wrongful, he cannot be extended the equitable relief of injunction as against the true owner.

27. It has been laid down in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K. C. Alexander, :-