The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the fundamental principles governing suits for perpetual injunction and recovery of possession, holding that mere assertions of title or stray evidence cannot substitute for specific pleadings establishing possession or dispossession.
Dismissing the civil appeal, the bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti upheld the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had recognised the absolute ownership of a widow over agricultural land granted to her in lieu of maintenance under Hindu law.
The litigation was filed by Sham Sunder (since deceased, represented by his legal representatives), seeking a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession of agricultural land measuring 8 Kanals and 5 Marlas situated in Village Lohara, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include an alternative prayer for recovery of possession.
The plaintiff claimed ownership and exclusive hisadari possession of the suit land, contending that the defendants were strangers with no right, title, or interest in the property. The first defendant, Soma Devi (since deceased), resisted the claim by asserting possession of the land through her late husband, Roshan Lal, and pleaded that the land had been granted to her by her father-in-law in lieu of maintenance, a right which later matured into full ownership.
The Trial Court, by judgment dated 20 June 1992, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish possession and that the land had been given to Soma Devi for maintenance.
On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this finding and allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in RSA No. 221 of 1998, set aside the appellate court’s judgment, holding that the land was indeed granted to Soma Devi in lieu of maintenance and that, by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her limited right ripened into absolute ownership.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the High Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s alleged 1/6th share in the property. The plaintiff’s name appeared in revenue records, indicating joint ownership. The alternative prayer for recovery of possession ought to have been granted, especially since the defendant failed to conclusively establish the plea of maintenance.
The respondents countered that the plaintiff neither proved possession nor pleaded essential particulars regarding dispossession, rendering both reliefs legally untenable.
The Bench emphasised that possession on the date of filing the suit is a sine qua non for grant of perpetual injunction. The Court noted that all forums had concurrently found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property at the relevant time.
With respect to the alternative relief of recovery of possession, the Court underscored that such a suit must specifically plead the plaintiff’s entitlement and manner of entitlement. The date, mode, and circumstances of dispossession. The nature of the defendant’s possession and why it is illegal.
The plaint was found to be bereft of these essential pleadings, and the Court held that evidence without foundational pleadings cannot be considered.
The Supreme Court relied heavily on its earlier decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370, reiterating that courts must insist on detailed, specific, and particularised pleadings in matters involving possession, to prevent false or speculative claims.
On the issue of ownership, the Court endorsed the High Court’s view that a widow’s right to maintenance is a pre-existing right under Shastric Hindu law. Property granted in lieu of such maintenance, even if initially limited, becomes the absolute property of the female Hindu under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on a purported Will, noting that such a plea was introduced for the first time in replication and was not part of the original plaint.
Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, holding that both the relief of injunction and recovery of possession were rightly denied due to lack of pleadings and proof.
Case Details
Case Title: Kanta And Others Versus Soma devi
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8451 Of 2011
Date: 06/02/2026
Read More: Future Prospects Can’t Be Denied in Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court
