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

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:

1. Prima facie case

2. Balance of convenience

3. 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

---

⚠️ Important Caveat (Very Important)

• This injunction:

  • Does NOT decide title

  • Does NOT validate oral sale

  • Is purely to preserve status quo

Final title will be decided after evidence.