The Supreme Court further held that once the suit is held to be barred by limitation with respect to the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation.
“It is true that under normal circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction sought is a substantive relief and the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed so long as the interference in possession continuous. However, in the case of a consequential relief, when the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the said principle shall not be applicable,” the top court said.
Thus, the prayer for permanent injunction must fail, the Court concluded.
“In the instant case as the plaintiff cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the suit land, i.e., the possession of the plaintiff is “not legal or authorised by the law,” the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any permanent injunction,” the two-judge bench held.
The Court further held that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the plaintiff was in possession, in that case also, once the plaintiff has lost so far as the relief of declaration and title is concerned and the defendant is held to be the true and absolute owner of the property, the true owner cannot be restrained by way of an injunction against him.
The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the permanent injunction granted in favour of plaintiff.