Municipality Gharaunda vs Tara Chand and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—This order be read in continuation of the order passed by this Court on 18.5.1999 and also the order dated 17.2.2000 passed in Review Application No. 7-C of 2000.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 18.5.1999 this Court had disposed of the appeal by observing as under:

...Simply because the plaintiffs are held to be in possession of the suit property, they are not entitled to get any injunction against he true owner. In this context, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in P.R. Shah v. Union of India J.T. 1994 (6) S.C. 585, wherein it has been observed that injunction cannot be issued against a true owner. In Faridabad Complex Administration v. Yadu etc. (1997(1) P.L.J. 135, it has been held that no injunction can be issued against the true owner. In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and Others Vs. Puna Municipal Corporation and Another, , it has been held that no injunction can be granted against the rightful owner in favour of a person in unlawful possession.

In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court and in view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the lower Appellate Court erred in law in granting injunction against the appellant Municipality.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court.

In the considered opinion of this Court the substantial question of law which arises for the consideration of this Court is "whether an injunction can be granted against a true owner and in favour of a person who is in unauthorised possession?" The said question has been conclusively answered in the aforesaid judgment dated 18.5.1999 after considering the observations made in the judicial pronouncements.

Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to other law points which are also reproduced as under:

Whether the suit is maintainable without complying with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.?

Whether the appeal had also abated in its entirety on the death of respondents/plaintiffs No. 6, 10, 13 and 14?

In so far question No. 3 is concerned, it does not survive in view of the order of the apex court dated 21.4.2009. Regarding question No. 2 it appears that even though ostensibly it was pleaded in the grounds of appeal but was never argued before this Court.

Consequently, the order dated 18.5.1999 is reiterated with the aforesaid questions of law having been answered hereinabove.