Welcome to the official blog of the Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates, where we are dedicated to providing litigation support services for matters related to properties. In today’s blog post, we aim to shed light on the prevailing issues surrounding property, the legal framework in place for their protection, and the steps we can take as a society to combat these acts. Join us as we explore this critical subject and empower you with the knowledge to protect your rights and safety.

What Is An Injunction?

An injunction is a court order that requires a person or entity to either do or refrain from doing a specific action. It is a legal remedy used to prevent harm or preserve rights in various types of disputes, including property disputes, contract breaches, or violations of intellectual property rights. Injunctions aim to maintain the status quo or provide equitable relief until the underlying legal issues are resolved through litigation or settlement.

Types Of Injunction

There are several types of injunctions that can be issued by a court, depending on the circumstances of the case:

  1. Temporary Injunction: Also known as a preliminary injunction, it is granted at the early stages of a legal proceeding to maintain the status quo until a final decision is reached. The procedure for granting temporary injunctions is governed by Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Temporary injunctions may be granted to protect property from wastage, alienation, or wrongful sale, or to restrain a defendant from breaching a contract or causing injury. The court exercises discretion based on three conditions:
    • The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case
    • Show potential irreparable injury without the injunction and
    • Demonstrate that monetary compensation would be insufficient.

  If a suit does not seek a permanent injunction, a temporary injunction is generally not granted.

CASE:  Ishwarbhai v Bhanushali Hiralal Mohanlal Nanda

The plaintiff requested a temporary injunction in a specific performance suit but did not seek a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from selling the land during the case. However, the temporary injunction was not granted based on an established principle.

  1. Permanent Injunction: Issued as a final judgment in a case, it prohibits certain actions or requires specific conduct to be followed on a permanent basis. Section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 states that a permanent injunction can only be granted through a decree in a regular suit, where the rights are examined and a judgment is made. A permanent injunction settles the rights of the parties involved, unlike a temporary injunction. Section 38 specifies the circumstances for granting a permanent injunction, including violations of property rights, trustee obligations, prevention of irreparable damage, and avoidance of multiple legal proceedings. A perpetual injunction is a final relief granted by a court judgment, disposing of the injunction suit. It can only be granted through a decree issued after a thorough inquiry and hearing of the merits of the case. Perpetual injunctions are given to prevent a breach of duty, protect property rights, or avoid a multiplicity of judicial proceedings. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, who must show the infringement of a legal right and lawful possession. In certain cases, even juridical possession, without the owner’s consent, can be protected by injunction.


Nuthaki Venkataswami v. Katta Nagi Reddy

The champertous agreements may not be considered void, allowing for injunctions to be granted.

Walter Louis Franklin v. George Singh

Similarly, in this case, where the plaintiff claimed unlawful land use by the defendant, the court granted a perpetual injunction since the land was in the plaintiff’s possession.

  1. Mandatory Injunction: Requires the defendant to take specific actions or perform certain tasks.
  2. Prohibitory Injunction: Prevents the defendant from engaging in certain actions or behaviours.
  3. Interlocutory Injunction: Granted during the course of a legal proceeding to prevent immediate harm or maintain the status quo until a final judgment is made.
  4. Quia Timet Injunction: Issued when there is a potential threat of harm or violation of rights that may occur in the future. It aims to prevent harm before it happens.
  5. Mareva Injunction: Freezes the assets of a defendant to prevent them from dissipating or hiding assets during legal proceedings.
  6. Anton Piller Injunction: Allows for the search and seizure of evidence before the defendant has a chance to destroy or tamper with it.

Disobedience of Injunction

Rule 2-A of Order 39 and Section 94(c) of the Civil Procedure Code outline the consequences of disobeying an injunction. Section 94(c) states that if someone disobeys an injunction, the court can order their imprisonment and attachment and sale of their property. Rule 2-A states that if there is disobedience or breach of the terms of an injunction, the court can attach the person’s property and detain them in civil prison for up to three months, with the possibility of release upon court direction. Any attachment remains valid for one year, and if the disobedience persists, the attached property may be sold.

Injunction Can Not be Granted Without Possession: No Injunction No Possession

The principle “without possession, no injunction” means that in order to obtain an injunction, a party must demonstrate actual possession or a legal right to possession of the property in question. This principle is based on the idea that a court will not grant an injunction to protect a party’s rights unless they can show that they are currently in possession of the property or have a clear legal entitlement to possess it.

To seek an injunction, the claimant must establish that they have a valid claim to possession and that they will suffer irreparable harm or loss if the injunction is not granted. Mere ownership or a future expectation of possession is not sufficient to obtain an injunction. The claimant must demonstrate that they have already taken possession or have a legally recognized right to possess the property.


Ramanuja Pillai v. Rangasami Goundan

The court held that injunctions cannot be granted against a person in wrongful possession when the true owner is not in possession.

Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh

Similarly, in this case, the court ruled that an injunction cannot be granted in favour of a person who is not in possession of the property and seeks to restrain the lawful owner from exercising their rights.

This principle ensures that injunctions are granted only when there is a clear and immediate threat to the claimant’s possession rights, preventing unjust or premature interference by the courts in disputes over property. It helps maintain a balance between protecting property rights and ensuring that injunctions are not granted frivolously or without sufficient legal basis.


The concept of “no injunction, no possession” refers to the principle that injunctions are typically not granted unless the plaintiff can demonstrate lawful possession of the disputed property. In other words, a person seeking an injunction must show that they have legal ownership or rightful possession of the property in question.

We are a law firm in the name and style of Law Offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate and Associates at Gurugram and Rewari. We are providing litigation support services for matters related to the Transfer of Property Act Civil Procedure Code, and Specific Relief Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This field is required.

This field is required.


The following disclaimer governs the use of this website (“Website”) and the services provided by the Law offices of Kr. Vivek Tanwar Advocate & Associates in accordance with the laws of India. By accessing or using this Website, you acknowledge and agree to the terms and conditions stated in this disclaimer.

The information provided on this Website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice or relied upon as such. The content of this Website is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Firm. Any reliance on the information provided on this Website is done at your own risk.

The Law Firm makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information contained on this Website.

The Law Firm disclaims all liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this Website or for any actions taken in reliance on the information provided herein. The information contained in this website, should not be construed as an act of solicitation of work or advertisement in any manner.