The Supreme Court has dismissed a civil appeal arising from a long-standing property dispute in Himachal Pradesh, holding that a plaintiff seeking an injunction or recovery of possession must specifically plead and prove possession, dispossession, and entitlement, and that vague pleadings are fatal to such claims.
- Case Title: Kanta and Others v. Soma Devi (Dead) Through LRs and Others
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
- Date of Judgment: February 6, 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 133
- Appeal: Civil Appeal No. 8451 of 2011
- Originating Proceedings: RSA No. 221 of 1998 from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Background of the Dispute
The litigation traces its origin to Civil Suit No. 496 of 1990 filed by Sham Sunder (since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives) before the Sub Judge First Class, Una.
The suit concerned agricultural land measuring 8 kanals and 5 marlas situated in Village Lohara, Tehsil Amb, District Una.
The plaintiff initially sought a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession of the suit land. Subsequently, the plaint was amended to include an alternative prayer for recovery of possession.
The plaintiff asserted ownership and claimed exclusive Hisadari possession as a co-owner. According to him, the defendants were strangers with no right, title, or interest in the property and had threatened unlawful interference.
Defence and Plea of Maintenance
The principal defence was raised by Soma Devi, the first defendant. She asserted that she was in possession of the suit land and traced her entitlement through her late husband, Roshan Lal.
It was contended that following Roshan Lal’s death, her father-in-law, acting as karta of the joint Hindu family, had granted her the suit land in lieu of maintenance.
According to the defence, the right of maintenance was a pre-existing right under Shastric Hindu Law and, by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the limited right initially conferred upon her ripened into absolute ownership after the commencement of the Act.
The defendant also disputed the plaintiff’s possession and contended that the prayer for recovery of possession was not maintainable, as the plaint did not disclose when or how the plaintiff was dispossessed.
Findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court
The Trial Court framed two issues: whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, and whether the suit land was joint Hindu family property given to Soma Devi for maintenance, thereby making her full owner in 1956.
By judgment dated June 20, 1992, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, accepting the defendant’s plea and holding that the plaintiff was not in possession.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Una, reversed this decision on April 8, 1998, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. This led the defendant to file a second appeal before the High Court.
High Court’s Reasoning
The High Court allowed the second appeal and restored the dismissal of the suit. It held that the First Appellate Court had erred in concluding that the suit land was not given to Soma Devi in lieu of maintenance.
The High Court emphasised that the right to maintenance is a pre-existing right and that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act has wide amplitude.
It covers every kind of acquisition of property by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act. Consequently, the limited interest of Soma Devi stood converted into absolute ownership.
The High Court also rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on a Will allegedly executed by his grandfather, noting that this plea was not raised in the original plaint and was introduced for the first time in the replication.
Submissions Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court failed to recognise the plaintiff’s alleged one-sixth share in the property and ignored revenue entries reflecting his name.
It was contended that the possession of the first defendant was only Hisadari possession and that the alternative relief of recovery of possession ought to have been granted, especially since the defendant had allegedly failed to prove her plea of maintenance.
The respondent’s counsel countered that the plaintiff had failed to prove possession or even plead when and how dispossession took place.
It was argued that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the deficiencies in the plaint and evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Pleadings and Possession
The Supreme Court underscored that in a suit for perpetual injunction, possession on the date of filing of the suit is an essential requirement. The Court noted that concurrent findings established that the plaintiff was not in possession when the suit was instituted.
Addressing the alternative relief of recovery of possession, the Court held that such a claim must be supported by clear pleadings detailing entitlement, the manner of entitlement, the date and mode of dispossession, and the illegality of the defendant’s possession.
In the present case, these foundational pleadings were “completely absent”.
The Court reiterated that “a few bits and pieces of evidence without pleading cannot be appreciated” and relied on the principles laid down in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira to stress the necessity of detailed and specific pleadings in possession-related disputes.
Quoting extensively from the precedent, the Court emphasised that pleadings must disclose who entered into possession, in what capacity, on what date, and on what basis a right to continue in possession is claimed.
Error in the First Appellate Court’s Approach
The Supreme Court also found fault with the approach of the First Appellate Court, observing that it had wrongly shifted the burden onto the defendant and drawn adverse inferences without appreciating the nature of the suit and the reliefs sought.
According to the Court, the First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the plaintiff had not discharged his initial burden of pleading and proving possession or dispossession, rendering the decree unsustainable.
Final Decision
For these reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and affirmed the judgment of the High Court.
No order as to costs was passed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
376612010_2026-02-06
