The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession from a terminated licensee is maintainable without a prior declaration of title, clarifying a long-standing ambiguity in property litigation. This judgment reinforces the principle that unauthorized possession after revocation of license constitutes a civil wrong actionable through injunction and mesne profits, irrespective of title disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Sarita Thakran, inherited a residential property in Village Islampur, Gurugram, through a registered sale deed (Ex.P1) dated 01.02.1979 and a registered Will dated 06.07.2009 executed by her late husband, Late Ram Chander Thakran. The defendant, her daughter-in-law, was permitted to occupy the first floor as a licensee following her marriage in 2007. The license was formally revoked on 15.01.2016, but the defendant refused to vacate despite repeated demands.
Procedural History
- 2016: Plaintiff filed suit for mandatory injunction, permanent injunction against third-party rights, and recovery of mesne profits.
- Trial Court (2020): Decreed mandatory injunction for eviction and awarded mesne profits at ₹10,000 per month from date of suit.
- First Appellate Court (2025): Affirmed the trial court’s decree on eviction and mesne profits.
- 2025: Defendant filed two Regular Second Appeals under Section 100 CPC challenging the concurrent findings.
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant from the first floor, restraint on creation of third-party rights, and recovery of mesne profits from the date of suit until actual delivery of possession. The defendant contested ownership, invoked the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and argued that a suit for injunction without title declaration was not maintainable.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a suit for mandatory injunction to recover possession from a terminated licensee is maintainable without a prior declaration of title, and whether the award of mesne profits under Section 2(12) CPC is justified when possession is retained after license revocation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable under Section 9 of the CPC without a declaration of title, citing the doctrine of res judicata and the principle that title must be established before seeking possession. She relied on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, asserting her right to residence as a member of a shared household. She further argued that the minor son had a birthright in the property and that the plaintiff’s ownership was clouded due to alleged state acquisition of land.
For the Respondent
The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s possession was purely permissive and derivative, and once the license was revoked, her continued occupation became unauthorized. She relied on Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars a licensee from denying the title of the licensor. She submitted that the registered Will and sale deed established her ownership, and the defendant’s reliance on the Domestic Violence Act was misplaced since the marriage had been dissolved by decree and proceedings under the Act were dismissed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is strictly confined to substantial questions of law and cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or substitute concurrent findings of fact. It noted that both lower courts had meticulously examined the documentary evidence - the registered sale deed, the Will attested by a witness, and the absence of any proof of state possession - and concluded that the plaintiff was the absolute owner.
"The plea of cloud over title cannot be raised by one whose entry into the premises was permissive."
The Court held that Section 116 of the Evidence Act operates as a conclusive bar against a licensee denying the title of the licensor. Since the defendant entered the premises as a licensee, she could not later challenge the plaintiff’s ownership. The Court distinguished the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, clarifying that Section 17 grants only a right of residence, not proprietary rights, and cannot override a testamentary transfer of self-acquired property.
Regarding mesne profits, the Court observed that the plaintiff had produced rent receipts showing she was paying ₹10,000 per month for alternate accommodation, while the defendant retained possession by locking the premises. The Court affirmed that Section 2(12) CPC entitles an owner to mesne profits when possession is wrongfully withheld after termination of license, and the amount awarded was modest and supported by evidence.
The Court cited Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar to reiterate that interference with concurrent findings is impermissible unless perversity or misreading of evidence is demonstrated - a threshold the appellant failed to meet.
The Verdict
The plaintiff won. The Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court. It held that a suit for mandatory injunction to evict a licensee is maintainable without a prior declaration of title, and mesne profits are recoverable under Section 2(12) CPC upon unauthorized retention of possession after license revocation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Suit for Eviction Is Maintainable Without Title Declaration
- Practitioners may now confidently file suits for mandatory injunction against licensees without first seeking a declaration of title, provided the license was lawfully revoked.
- Section 116 of the Evidence Act provides a ready-made legal shield against title challenges by licensees.
- This reduces litigation costs and delays in possession disputes involving family members or tenants.
Mesne Profits Are Not Discretionary But Entitlement-Based
- The award of mesne profits is not contingent on the owner’s actual use of the property but on wrongful possession.
- Evidence of alternate accommodation costs (e.g., rent receipts) strengthens the claim for mesne profits.
- Courts will uphold modest, reasonable amounts even if the property is not rented out, as long as possession is unlawfully retained.
Domestic Violence Act Does Not Override Testamentary Ownership
- A decree of divorce and dismissal of DV Act proceedings negate any claim of right to residence.
- Self-acquired property bequeathed by Will cannot be claimed as a shared household under Section 17.
- Lawyers must distinguish between personal rights of residence and proprietary rights in inheritance matters.
