By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 27 April 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
A suit for permanent injunction to restrain interference with possession is among the most common property suits. It protects existing possession. It is not a way to recover possession, or to decide a disputed question of title.
A plaintiff must therefore show that they were in settled possession of the property on the date of the suit. A person in wrongful or precarious possession, or who has been dispossessed, is generally not entitled to an injunction and should sue for possession and, where title is clouded, for declaration. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (2008), the Supreme Court set out when a bare injunction suit is enough and when a declaration or possession suit is needed. Where title is in real dispute, the injunction suit is usually not sufficient.
At the interim stage, the usual tests of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury apply, and courts are cautious about granting an ex parte order that disturbs the existing position without hearing the other side, except in urgent cases. In family and co-ownership disputes, where possession has shifted informally, the choice of remedy needs particular care.