The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot replace mandatory injunction decrees with monetary compensation when such relief was not sought. A Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Punjab and Haryana HC order.
The Supreme Court of India, comprising a Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, held that a High Court cannot overturn concurrent decrees for a mandatory injunction and require a plaintiff to accept monetary compensation when no such relief was sought or agreed to by the parties. Finding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s approach of replacing decrees directing removal of illegal constructions with compensation to be unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication on their merits.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from two separate civil suits instituted by the original plaintiff, Om Parkash, whose legal heirs (Rajat Kumar and others) are the appellants before the Supreme Court.
First Suit: Civil Suit No. 426 of 1996: This suit was filed against S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sadhaura and others (respondents). The plaintiff prayed for:
- a mandatory injunction for removal of an illegal encroachment in the form of a wall built by the defendants on a common open space beyond the plaintiff’s house; and
- a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising further construction.
The plaintiff alleged that the wall interfered with his right to enjoy air and light through ventilators and also obstructed water flow through the common path. By judgment dated February 6, 2006, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing removal of the encroachment and restraining further construction. The first Appellate Court affirmed the decision on September 5, 2007.
Aggrieved, the defendants filed Regular Second Appeal No. 364 of 2008 before the High Court. On November 25, 2011, the High Court disposed of the appeal by directing the defendants to pay Rs 10,000 with interest at 12% per annum described as being half the construction cost and held that the wall would be treated as “common.”
Second Suit: Civil Suit No. 148 of 2000: This suit was also filed by Om Parkash against the same defendants seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of the lintel of a school building erected by the defendants on the wall of the plaintiff’s house. By judgment dated November 8, 2004, the Trial Court decreed the suit and ordered removal of the lintel. The first Appellate Court upheld the same on September 5, 2007.
The defendants thereafter preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 363 of 2008 before the High Court. On November 25, 2011, the High Court passed a similar order, directing payment of Rs 7,000 with interest at 12% per annum, again with the direction that the wall would be treated as “common.”
The plaintiff’s legal heirs challenged the High Court orders. On September 13, 2013, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments, observing that modification of decrees without addressing the merits and without framing substantial questions of law was impermissible, and remanded the proceedings.
Remand and Second High Court Decision
On remand, the High Court concluded that the construction was raised long ago, no valuation report was on record, and the plaintiff’s claim was not proved.
Reasoning that the matter could be addressed through money, the High Court set aside the decrees of the lower courts and directed the Executing Court to assess the value of the construction and order the defendants to deposit that amount for the benefit of the legal heirs of the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by this second reversal, the legal heirs approached the Supreme Court again.
Arguments of the Parties before SC and Observations
The appellants, represented by advocate Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in reversing the well-supported concurrent decrees of the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court on irrelevant considerations. The appellants also noted that, despite being served, no appearance was entered on behalf of the respondents before the Supreme Court since April 23, 2019.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | Rajinikanth-Starrer ‘Coolie’ Pirated Versions Must Be Blocked On Websites: Madras High Court Directs BSNL, Airtel & Others
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred materially in overturning the concurrent decrees of the lower courts.
The Court emphasized that both suits were instituted by the original plaintiff specifically for mandatory and permanent injunctions. It noted that the Trial Court had found that the defendants failed to establish any right, title, or interest over the land where the wall was built, and that they had illegally placed a lintel on the plaintiff’s wall.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court recorded that the original plaintiff had never prayed for damages or monetary compensation, and the legal heirs had not consented to any arrangement involving compensation in lieu of the injunction.
In this context, the Supreme Court stated:
“In absence of any such relief sought by the original plaintiff, the decree passed in his favour could not have been set aside by the High Court by compelling his legal heirs to accept compensation that was directed to be assessed by a valuer.”
The Bench further added:
“The High Court, therefore, could not have undertaken such exercise of seeking to compensate one party at the cost of the other without any prayer being made in that regard.”
The Supreme Court also criticized the procedure adopted by the High Court as being practically untenable. By setting aside the Trial Court’s decrees, the High Court effectively left nothing for the Executing Court to execute. On this point, the Supreme Court observed:
“Once the decrees passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff were set aside, there would be no occasion for the Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings since there would be no decree holding the field for being executed.”
It further held:
“Indeed, the course adopted by the High Court does not find support under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”
The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court repeated the same mistake that had already led to its earlier 2011 orders being set aside in 2013.
ALSO READ: Music & Licensing: Court Rulings on Music and Entertainment in India
Further, the Court pointed out that the High Court proceeded on a “factually wrong premise” by treating the Trial Court as having recorded a finding that the wall was a common wall, when such a finding did not actually exist.
Additionally, the Supreme Court observed that although the High Court listed questions proposed by the defendants for framing as substantial questions of law, the impugned judgment did not demonstrate that those questions were genuinely treated as such.
Concluding that the High Court’s approach resulted in prejudice and injustice, the Supreme Court stated:
“It is, thus, clear that without an available question of law for consideration and also by making out a new prayer, the decrees passed in favour of the original plaintiff have been set aside. The legal heirs of the plaintiff have been required to accept monetary relief for which a prayer was never made. Such course has resulted in miscarriage of justice.”
Decision of the Court:
Holding the High Court’s common judgment dated May 2, 2016 to be unsustainable, the Supreme Court set it aside. Since the Second Appeals were not adjudicated on their actual merits, the Supreme Court remanded both appeals RSA Nos. 363 and 364 of 2008 to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Given that the Second Appeals date back to 2008, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to decide them expeditiously.
The Civil Appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Rajat Kumar and Others v. S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sadhaura and Others Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 19552–19553 of 2017
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE