Even If You Own the Property, You Must Still Seek Possession: Supreme Court Explains Why

The case involved a family dispute over property ownership and possession. The plaintiff, S. Santhana Lakshmi, claimed ownership of land on the basis of a Will executed by her father.
Her brother, Munuswamy, was living on the property and claimed it as his own. The plaintiff filed a suit in 2003 seeking an injunction to stop her brother from alienating or interfering with the property.
However, she did not ask the court for recovery of possession, even though she admitted that the property was physically occupied by her brother.
Q. What did the Supreme Court say?
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran said that even if someone’s title over the property is proved, they cannot get an injunction alone without also seeking possession if they are not in control of the property.

The court observed:

“We cannot but find the ‘Will’ is proved but the right of the testator to bequeath the property is still under a cloud. Even if the title is established, there should have been a recovery of possession sought by the plaintiff.”
This means that a person who owns a property but is not in actual possession must file a suit seeking both declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, not just an injunction.

Q. What is a suit for injunction simpliciter?
An injunction simpliciter is a civil suit filed only to prevent interference or alienation of property, without seeking any other relief like possession or title declaration.
The Supreme Court clarified that injunctions protect possession, not ownership. If the plaintiff is not in possession, courts cannot issue injunctions restraining another person who is.
In this case, both the trial court and the High Court had wrongly granted injunctions in favour of the plaintiff even though she admitted the defendant was in occupation of the property.
Q. What did the Court decide about the Will and the property?
The Supreme Court held that the Will was proved, but the father’s right to bequeath the property was uncertain because it was claimed to be ancestral land.
The bench said that both parties had failed to establish full ownership or possession, creating a “stalemate.”
The Court, therefore, granted liberty to both sides to file fresh suits within three months for declaration of title and recovery of possession, so the matter could be properly adjudicated.
The Supreme Court ordered that until a fresh case is filed and decided, neither party can sell or encumber the property.
It also clarified that any future proceedings would be heard afresh and independently, without being influenced by the findings in the present judgment.
Q. Why is this ruling important for property owners?
This judgment reinforces a core rule in Indian property law:
→ Title alone does not guarantee possession.
→ Courts protect possession through injunctions, not ownership on paper.
So, even if you have a registered sale deed, gift deed, or Will, you must also establish or seek possession in court if someone else occupies the property. Otherwise, your claim remains incomplete in law.
Q. What broader principle did the Supreme Court highlight?
The bench underscored that possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership gives the right to possess, but possession itself must be proven or recovered.
It also noted that a poorly drafted plaint and vague evidence can mislead courts, and that relief must be based on the actual relationship between title and possession.
Case Title: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Ors vs D. Rajammal
Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: October 2025