Madras High Court: a suit for bare injunction fails once there is a genuine cloud over the plaintiff's title

A villager from Chekkanoorani in Madurai district sued the State of Tamil Nadu and police officers for a mandatory and permanent injunction, claiming a strip of land next to the police quarters was a pathway used by villagers from time immemorial, which the local sub-inspector was obstructing with new construction. Both the trial court and the first appellate court ruled for the plaintiff, relying mainly on his own sketch and oral evidence. On second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Madras High Court's Madurai Bench found the lower courts had overlooked the court-commissioner's report, which -- consistent with the defendants' case -- showed the land formed part of the police department's drill ground, that no pathway appeared in the revenue records or field measurement book, and that another pathway ran near the plaintiff's own house.

The plaintiff had neither pleaded nor proved a right of easement over the land. Applying the Supreme Court's settled position in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, that a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable once there is a genuine cloud over title and no declaration of title is sought, the High Court held the suit could not survive. The second appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed.