Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Others (2008)

Quick Summary

This case draws a clear map for property suits:

• If your lawful possession is disturbed or threatened—injunction simpliciter is fine.
• If title is in dispute and you are not in possession—ask for declaration and possession (with or without injunction).
• High Courts in Section 100 CPC second appeals must stick to substantial questions of law—no fact recheck and no issues beyond pleadings.

Issues

1. What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction concerning immovable property?
2. On these facts, should the plaintiffs have filed for declaration of title and possession instead of an injunction only?
3. Could the High Court, in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, examine title questions not pleaded or framed as issues?
4. What is the correct outcome?

Rules

• Injunction simpliciter is proper when there is interference with lawful possession or threat of dispossession.
• Declaration + possession is needed when title is disputed and the plaintiff is not in possession.
• When title is undisputed but plaintiff lacks possession—file possession suit with consequential injunction.
• In an injunction suit, courts ordinarily decide possession, not complex title, unless pleadings, issues, and evidence permit a simple title finding.
• For vacant sites, courts may look at title to infer de jure possession.
• No court can consider evidence or arguments without pleadings and framed issues.

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s decree, and dismissed the suit for injunction.

• High Court exceeded Section 100 CPC by entering disputed title questions that were not pleaded or framed as issues.
• Given the vacant nature of the land and conflicting claims, the matter required a proper title (declaration) suit.
• No opinion was expressed on title, leaving parties free to pursue a declaration suit.

Ratio

Injunction suits focus on possession. Title is examined only when pleadings, issues, and evidence exist and the question is simple. If title is disputed and the plaintiff lacks possession, the correct remedy is a declaration and possession suit. High Courts cannot, in second appeal, decide new fact-heavy questions or issues beyond pleadings.

Why It Matters

• Gives a ready checklist to choose the right remedy in property disputes.
• Protects procedural discipline: no issues → no decision.
• Helps courts avoid turning injunction suits into mini title trials.

Key Takeaways

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “PIP: Possession → Injunction; (no) Possession + title Issue → Possession by declaration.”

1. Check Possession: Are you in possession and being disturbed? → Injunction.
2. Check Title Dispute: If title is seriously disputed and you’re out of possession → Declaration + possession.
3. Check Pleadings/Issues: If not on record, court won’t decide it.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether an injunction suit alone was maintainable and whether the High Court could decide unpleaded title questions in a second appeal.

Rule

Injunction suits address possession; complex title questions require a declaration suit. Section 100 CPC restricts second appeals to substantial questions of law.

Application

Claims of oral gift and ostensible ownership were unpleaded/mixed and could not be decided in an injunction suit or in a Section 100 second appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decree and dismissed the injunction suit, reserving liberty for a declaration suit.

Glossary

Injunction simpliciter

A suit only to stop interference or dispossession, without asking for declaration of title.

Declaration of title

A decree stating who owns the property.

Section 100 CPC

Second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law; facts aren’t re-tried.

Section 41 TPA

Protection for bona fide purchasers from ostensible owners—needs proper pleadings and proof.

Related Cases