In Lakhi Ram and Others v. Babu Ram (since deceased) through Legal Heirs and Another (RSA-893-1991(O&M), decided on 27.03.2026), the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a second appeal, set aside concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court, and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, holding it barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Facts in Brief
The respondent/plaintiff claimed possession over agricultural land in village Hirapur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1984 executed by defendant no.1 (Tek Chand). However, this sale deed, along with a prior mortgage deed dated 31.01.1984, had already been declared null and void by a compromise decree dated 28.09.1984 in Civil Suit No. 518 of 28.07.1984 filed by Ram Gopal, son of defendant no.1. The respondent/plaintiff was himself a party to that compromise and had consented to the suit being decreed against him.
After the compromise decree, defendant no.1 sold the suit land to defendants no.2 to 5 (appellants) through two registered sale deeds dated 16.11.1984 and 14.02.1986. The appellants claimed continuous possession as owners, a claim supported by jamabandis and khasra girdawaris spanning from 1983-84 to 2018-19.
Despite this, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter, without seeking any declaration of title or recovery of possession. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court decreed the suit in his favour.
The High Court’s Analysis
The High Court noted that the sale deed on which the respondent/plaintiff founded his claim had been unconditionally declared null and void by the compromise decree. The lower appellate Court had misread this decree as merely protecting reversionary rights, when in fact it extinguished the respondent/plaintiff’s rights under the nullified documents altogether. With those documents gone, the respondent/plaintiff had no basis to claim either title or possession.
On the other side, the appellants held registered sale deeds and revenue records showing continuous possession. There was, therefore, a clear and strong disagreement over both title and possession of the suit land.
In these circumstances, the High Court held that a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter was not maintainable. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sanjay Paliwal and Others v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (2026 SCC Online SC 83), the Court held that where there exists a dispute over title and possession of the suit property, a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction is barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appropriate remedy is to institute a suit for possession along with consequential injunctive relief, not a suit for injunction alone.
The Court also reiterated the settled position that a sale deed, by itself, is not sufficient to establish possession.
Result
The second appeal was allowed. The concurrent findings of the Courts below on issues no. 1, 3 and 6 were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.
Mr. Vaibhav Sharma and Mr. Harit Narang, Advocates, appeared for the Appellants, i.e., Mr. Lakhi Ram and others.