SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT | SUPREME COURT HOLDS SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION SIMPLICITER NOT MAINTAINABLE WHEN PLAINTIFF’S TITLE IS DISPUTED

The Supreme Court of India examined a significant question regarding the maintainability of mandatory injunction suits in the absence of prayers for possession in Sanjay Paliwal and Another v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016). The case was heard the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh. This Judgment clarifies the application of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which restricts injunctive relief when equally efficacious remedies are available through other legal procedures.
Factual Background
The Appellants, who were partners in Vaishali Builders, acquired a plot of land measuring fifteen biswa (a unit of land measurement) through a registered sale deed dated January 6, 1992. This land, identified as Khasra No. 436 within the revenue records of Ahmedpur Karachh in Jwalapur, Haridwar District, was purchased from Laxminarayan Jha (the recorded landholder) and Bashir Khan (a cultivating tenant). Following the transaction, the partnership firm’s name was appropriately updated in the revenue documents and the partners maintained continuous ownership and actual possession of the property.
The disputed plot was bounded on its northern, southern and western boundaries by properties belonging to the defendant company and others. On the eastern side lay a pucca (paved) road that provided essential access to the property. The partners had relied on this roadside access for the practical utilization and enjoyment of their land for several years without obstruction.
Contentions of the Parties
The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant Company, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, had unlawfully constructed a boundary wall between specific boundary points, thereby blocking their established right to access the public road on the eastern side. Despite several requests for removal, the Company refused to dismantle the obstruction. The Plaintiffs contended that the wall was constructed on land over which they exercised ownership and possession and this wrongful action prevented them from accessing the only feasible route to their property. Consequently, they approached the Trial Court seeking a mandatory injunction order directing the company to remove the wall.
The Company’s defense rested on multiple grounds. First, it asserted that the wall had existed for approximately three decades and was a permanent fixture of its property boundary. Second, it denied that the Plaintiffs possessed any legitimate claim to the disputed land, asserting instead that it had exercised exclusive possession and control over the area in question. The Defendant raised statutory objections, contending that the suit was maintainable neither under the Partnership Act, 1932 (due to the partnership being unregistered), nor under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as an alternative remedy of possession suits remained available.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and reversed the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. The Apex Court analyzed the critical issue regarding whether a suit for mandatory injunction could be maintained when questions of both title and possession of the property were seriously disputed between the parties.
Justice Aravind Kumar articulated that while mandatory injunction suits could generally be entertained without prayers for possession in limited circumstances, such exceptions did not apply when a serious cloud hung over the Plaintiff’s fundamental claims to both ownership and actual occupation of the property. The Court established that Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act operates as a meaningful constraint on judicial discretion, when alternative remedies are equally efficacious and courts should not grant injunctive relief, particularly where possession disputes are central to the controversy.
The Judgment identified three critical disputes that rendered the injunction inappropriate: first, the assertion of ownership by Plaintiffs contradicted directly by the Defendant’s denial; second, the competing claims regarding who possessed the property and third, disagreement about the exact location and identification of the specific portion within the larger revenue survey number that the Plaintiffs claimed to have purchased.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s reasoning, while not perfectly articulated, reached a sound conclusion. The High Court had correctly identified that the appropriate remedy available to the Plaintiffs lay in instituting a comprehensive suit for possession, combined with injunctive relief if necessary, rather than pursuing injunction as the sole relief. The Court noted that a suit for possession would allow thorough examination of all factual and legal questions regarding title, possession and the property’s exact boundaries, thereby providing a remedy at least as efficacious as, if not more comprehensive than, a standalone injunction suit.
Conclusion
This Judgment reinforces an important principle that mandatory injunction, while a powerful equitable remedy, and must yield to equally efficacious alternatives under the statutory scheme prescribed by the Specific Relief Act. The Judgment demonstrates that courts must exercise prudence in granting injunctive relief, particularly when complex property disputes involve contested questions of title and possession. The decision clarifies that parties with uncertain property rights cannot bypass the comprehensive process of possession suits by seeking shelter in injunction proceedings. By requiring plaintiffs to pursue appropriate remedies that squarely address disputed ownership and control, the judicial system ensures more thorough adjudication and prevents the abuse of injunctive relief as a substitute for proper property litigation.

YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALIED SERVICES
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Understanding SARFAESI Act | Rights of Borrowers 2025, DRT, Supreme Court Judgments” can be viewed at the link below: