C. Hanumanthappa vs Ramakrishnappa and Nagaraj

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard die counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents.

The appeal coming on for admission is considered for final disposal.

The Appellant was the Plaintiff before the trial court seeking the relief of permanent injunction based on Hakku Patra in respect of the suit property. The very identity of the suit property was seriously disputed by the Defendants which possibly compelled the trial court to embark on an enquiry as to the particulars of the respective properties claimed by the parties, in the result, they are several observations which touch upon the title of the Plaintiff itself when those were not the issues that were framed on the basis of pleadings. It. is this primary contention that is sought to he urged as a substantial question of law by the Appellant namely, when the suit was for bare injunction, whether it was open for the courts below to have examined the title of the Plaintiff and thereafter to have dismissed the suit for hare injunction?

While the learned Counsel for the second Respondent would submit that this, in circumstances, would be inevitable and it is not unusual for the coons to examine the title of the parties notwithstanding that the suit may have been for the relief of bare injunction. In any event, such findings would not prejudice the suitor from instituting independent proceedings to establish his title, if the relief of injunction was rejected on doubtful title as in the case of the present Appellant.

Given this circumstance, since there is a serious dispute about the title of the Appellant, it was more appropriate if the courts below had relegated the parties to a comprehensive suit to address the question of title as well. However, the Appellant having been compelled to prosecute the suit notwithstanding that the scope of the suit having been widened on account of the issue of title having been addressed, it cannot be said that die Appellant would be precluded from instituting a fresh suit for declaration and for such other consequential relief; that he may be entitled notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit that was filed by the Appellant which is the subject matter of these proceedings. Further, since the cause of action according to the Appellant arose in the year 2004 whether a suit for declaration of title would be barred by limitation at this point of time need not be a question for consideration. That should not pose an impediment as the Appellant has prosecuted these proceedings in the bona fide belief that he was yet in a position to establish his claim. The pendency of these proceedings would save the period of limitation and accordingly, the Appellant is entitled to prefer a fresh comprehensive suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs including the relief of injunction if he is able to satisfy the trial court of the merits of his case.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the Appellant to institute an appropriate suit within a reasonable time, in any event, within four weeks from today.