False Pleadings Bar Mandatory Injunction Relief Even Where Encroachment Is Proved: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that a party seeking the discretionary relief of mandatory injunction must approach the court with clean hands, even if encroachment is otherwise proved through evidence. The Court observed that false statements and suppression of material facts are sufficient grounds to deny equitable relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The case arose from a property dispute in Village Shillar, Solan district, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had illegally constructed a kitchen over the suit land in October 1998. A demarcation report later confirmed encroachment on portions of the land. However, during cross-examination, it emerged that the plaintiff had already issued a legal notice in 1994 complaining about the same construction, contradicting the claim that the structure was raised in 1998.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla noted that the plaintiff deliberately relied on a false date to avoid the consequences of delay and acquiescence. Referring to Sections 36, 39, and 41(i) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court reiterated that injunctions are discretionary remedies and cannot be granted as a matter of right.

The Court further relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasising that litigants who resort to falsehood or suppression of facts are not entitled to equitable relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the refusal to grant mandatory injunction was upheld.