1 2025:CGHC:8854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 164 of 2018 1 - Dayashanker Halwai, Aged 57 Years, R/o Village And Tahsil Marvahi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Smt. Siyadulari W/o Laxmichand, Aged 70 Years, 2 Sunita D/o Laxmichand, Aged 42 Years 3 Sarita D/o Laxmichand, Aged 38 Years, 4 Savita D/o Laxmichand, Aged 36 Years 5 Dhiraj Kumar S/o Laxmichand, Aged 33 Years 6 - Babita D/o Laxmichand, Aged 31 Years All are R/o Village And Tahsil Marvahi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiffs), ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Appellant : Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2025.02.24 10:58:16 +0530 2 SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 20/02/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit (Civil Suit No.86A/2014) for permanent injunction. He would submit that by the judgment dated 26.4.2016 passed by the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Class I, Pendra Road, Civil Suit No.86A/2014, was dismissed, however, the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur) by the judgment dated 15.1.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.53A/2016 reversed the finding(s) recorded by the trial Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein with respect to the title over the suit land/ property. He would further submit that the since the plaintiffs’ title is under a cloud, a suit for grant of injunction would not lie particularly when the defendant has raised a genuine dispute with regard to title. Thus, in such circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit for mere injunction. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Second Appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law : “Whether the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court in absence of any claim with regard to relief of title in the plaint and thereby, granting a decree without considering the fact that the plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for mere 3 injunction, is perverse or not ? 4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs accepts notice on such substantial questions of law. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that this matter may be remitted to the trial Court for affording an opportunity to the plaintiffs for making suitable amendment with regard to the relief of declaration of title over the subject land/property. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the law with regard to the issue whether the simplicitor suit for mere injunction is maintainable or not is well established. For the above submission, he would place reliance on the matter of T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M. Mallappa, reported in AIR 2021 SC 4293, wherein, it has been observed that where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is quite evident that though the plaintiffs have simpliciter made an averment in the plaint that they were the title holder of the subject land, but the defendant in his written statement has made a specific pleading that in a family partition, the 4 subject land had been given in his share. 8. In such circumstances, when there is a serious cloud over the title of the plaintiffs, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title instead of a suit for mere injunction. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter to the concerned trial Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to the respondents/plaintiffs to suitably amend the plaint with regard to the relief of declaration of title and after such amendment, an opportunity shall also be afforded to the other side i.e. the appellant herein for consequential amendment, if any. It is further directed that after framing of appropriate issues and affording opportunity to lead evidence by both the parties, the subject suit shall be decided in an expeditious manner. Ordered accordingly. 10.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 20.3.2025. 11.Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set-aside. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Appeal is disposed of. 13. A decree be drawn accordingly. 14. Record be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Shyna