Case Study _ Mere Long Possession of land can plaintiff get temporary injuction ?

Posted on February 19, 2026 by Admin

Facts

Plaintiff claims:
- His father purchased land in 1992 from father of Defendant Nos. 1–3
- Purchase was by oral contract + cash transaction
- Possession delivered in 1992
- Continuous agricultural use since 1992
Plaintiff filed a title suit based on:
- Oral sale + possession
- Adverse possession
Revenue record (7/12) is still in defendants’ names
Plaintiff seeks temporary injunction as defendants plan to sell land
Defendants:
- Served with summons
- Did not appear
- No written statement
- No reply to injunction application

❓ Core Legal Question

👉 Can the plaintiff get temporary injunction despite revenue title being in defendants’ names and claim being based on oral sale + adverse possession?

⚖️ Governing Legal Principles (Temporary Injunction)

As per settled law laid down by the Supreme Court of India, temporary injunction depends on three mandatory conditions:

Prima facie case
Balance of convenience
Irreparable injury

(Authority: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719)

1️⃣ Prima Facie Case — YES (at interim stage)

(a) Oral sale + possession

Under law:
- Oral sale of immovable property is not valid to convey title
- BUT long, settled possession is legally protectable
Plaintiff claims possession since 1992 (30+ years)

📌 At injunction stage:

Court does not decide final title
Court only sees whether claim is bona fide and triable

✔ Long possession + agricultural use = serious triable issue

(b) Adverse possession (important nuance)

It is true that:
- A person cannot claim perfect title and adverse possession simultaneously at final stage
BUT at interim stage:
- Pleadings can be alternative
- Court only examines whether possession is long, continuous, and peaceful

✔ Hence, prima facie case exists for protection of possession, not declaration yet.

(c) Defendant ex parte conduct

Defendants:
- Did not file written statement
- Did not deny possession
- Did not oppose injunction

📌 Law is clear:

Unrebutted pleadings at interim stage strengthen prima facie case.

2️⃣ Balance of Convenience — In Favour of Plaintiff

Plaintiff is:
- In actual possession
- Cultivating land
Defendants are:
- Only paper title holders
- Not in possession
- Intending to sell to third parties

If injunction is refused:

Plaintiff may lose possession
Third-party rights will complicate litigation

If injunction is granted:

Defendants suffer no irreparable harm
They only remain restrained from alienation

✔ Therefore, balance of convenience clearly favours plaintiff

3️⃣ Irreparable Injury — YES

Sale to third parties would:
- Create multiplicity of proceedings
- Make final decree ineffective
- Cause injury not compensable by money

📌 Courts consistently hold:

Threat of alienation during pendency of suit itself constitutes irreparable injury.

4️⃣ Effect of Revenue Entry in Defendant’s Name

Revenue record:
- Is not conclusive proof of title
- Is meant for fiscal purposes only

📌 Possession prevails over revenue entry at injunction stage.

5️⃣ Effect of Defendant Remaining Absent (Ex Parte)

Important principle:

Injunction is not automatic merely because defendant is absent
BUT:
- Court can rely on uncontroverted pleadings
- Court can draw adverse inference

✔ Plaintiff’s affidavit remains unchallenged, which supports interim relief.

🧠 Relevant Supreme Court Guidance

From Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh

All three conditions must coexist — which they do here.

From Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack

Law protects settled possession, even against the true owner, unless dispossession is by due process.

✅ Final Legal Opinion (Clear Answer)

✔ YES — Plaintiff CAN get temporary injunction, but with limits:

Likely form of injunction:

Restraint against dispossession
Restraint against sale / transfer / creation of third-party rights
Subject to:
- Plaintiff proving actual possession
- Suit being diligently prosecuted