Property Matter Dispute - Declaration of Title, Possession & then Injunction says the Supreme Court!!

Let's talk some family drama—but not the kind you see at weddings!! This one’s about land, family promises, a Will, and a whole lot of back-and-forth between the 3 siblings who just couldn’t agree on who owns what!

 Rajammal believed she had a right to half of a plot of land because her father had left a Will in her favour. However, her brother, Munuswamy, was not keen on this claim by his sister. He said he had been enjoying the western portion, and Govindrajan, his brother, had been enjoying the eastern portion of the house built on the land for years, not as a tenant but as a “co-owner,” and that things had been settled long ago between the two brothers. You’d think a family could sort these things out at some Panchayat or with some elder giving advice, but nope—it went all the way to the Supreme Court!

A suit was filed by Rajammal against Munuswamy, her brother, for injunction simpliciter, one, to restrain alienation or encumbrance of the suit property and the other to restrain interference with the peaceful possession & enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The claim was made specifically on the ground that by a Will dated 30.09.1985, Rangaswamy Naidu, their father, had bequeathed the said property equally in favour of Rajammal and another brother, Govindarajan.

• The trial court judge took Rajammal’s side: “The Will is valid, don’t let Munuswamy sell the land or create third-party rights!”
• The first appeal court judge reversed the trial court judgement: “Was this even the father’s property to give away under a Will, or was it a joint family property inherited by the father? Appeal went against Rajammal.”
• The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgement, restoring the trial court's judgement and decree: “The WILL was legit and the right of the Rajammal over the property was established and the possession was found to follow title thus enabling both the injunctions sought for. .”
• The Supreme Court said: You can’t just ask for an order to keep things peaceful if you’re not even living there. If you want the court to say it’s really yours—and give it back—ASK FOR IT, LOUD AND CLEAR!” Both sides had admitted before the court that Munuswamy was living on the land, not Rajammal. But Rajammal only asked for a court order stopping Munuswamy from doing things—not for the actual piece of paper saying the land was hers, or to get Munuswamy out.

The Supreme Court said to both families, if you TRULY want the court to sort this out, you’ve got to file for a proper fresh suit for declaration of title and consequential possession or recovery of possession within 3 months. The Supreme Court also held that no alienation shall be made by either party or the subject property encumbered.

For anyone with a messy family property dispute:

• Don’t skip legal steps. If you want the land, say so clearly. Don’t just ask for a fence or “peace”—ask for your title, and for possession.
• Unclear reliefs/prayer? Confusion in your story because of an ill-drafted plaint? The court can only work with what you GIVE them.

So, if you’re having a property tug-of-war in your family, it’s worth remembering: in court, clarity wins! And don’t wait for years, hoping things will work themselves out—you could end up in a deadlock like Rajammal’s family.

If you have a family property story like this one? Share it in the comments! Sometimes, what feels like a web of old agreements needs a fresh look… or maybe, just maybe, a really good tea (~ chai) break.

---

[2025 INSC 1197: S. Santhana Lakshmi & Others v. D. Rajammal, Supreme Court of India]