RAJAT KUMAR AND OTHERSversusS D ADARSH JAIN KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SADHAURA AND OTHERS

                 [2026] 7 S.C.R. 187 : 2026 INSC 648

                      Rajat Kumar and Others
                                 v.
                    S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha
                   Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others
                (Civil Appeal No(s). 19552-19553 of 2017)
                                19 June 2026
            [S.V.N. Bhatti and Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the High Court erred in reversing the decree for mandatory
       injunction for removal of encroachment in favour of the plaintiff
       passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the first Appellate Court
       and, undertaking an exercise to compensate the legal heirs of
       the plaintiff in monetary terms without any prayer being made in
       that regard.

                                 Headnotes†
       Relief – Not prayed for – Grant of – Impermissibility – Original
       plaintiff filed suits against the respondents-original defendants
       seeking mandatory injunction for removal of alleged illegal
       encroaching wall; removal of lintel of the school building
       erected by defendants on the wall of the plaintiff’s house –
       Suits decreed by Trial Court, defendants were directed to
       remove the constructions and also restrained from raising
       any further construction – Decrees affirmed by First Appellate
       Court – High Court, in second appeals modified the decrees,
       directed the defendants to pay compensation and to treat the
       wall as ‘common’ between the parties – In previous round of
       litigation, High Court’s judgment was set aside by Supreme
       Court on the ground that the modification of the decrees
       by the High Court without entering into the merits of the
       controversy was impermissible and no substantial questions
       of law were framed while deciding the Second Appeals; matter
       remanded for fresh consideration – On remand, the High Court
       yet again set aside the decrees and directed the Executing
       Court to assess the value of the construction for payment of
       compensation to the legal heirs of the plaintiff; the defendants

* Author
188                                                             [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       were directed to deposit such amount in the Executing Court
       to be paid to the legal heirs of the plaintiff – Challenge to:
       Held: High Court erred in reversing the decrees passed by the
       Trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate Court on irrelevant
       considerations – The initial suit filed by the original plaintiff
       was essentially for a decree for mandatory injunction seeking
       removal of the alleged encroachment undertaken at the behest
       of the defendants on the common open space beyond the
       construction of the plaintiff – According to the original plaintiff,
       such construction interfered with the right of the plaintiff to enjoy
       air and light through the ventilators as well as obstructed the
       passing of water through the common path – Defendants could
       not prove any right, title or interest on the land on which they
       had erected the wall – The decree was, thus, passed to remove
       the wall illegally erected by them – In the other suit, the Trial
       Court found that the defendants had put up a lintel of the school
       building on the wall of the plaintiff’s house illegally – A decree
       directing removal of the same and restraining the defendants
       from doing so in the future was passed – Both these decrees
       were upheld by the first Appellate Court – There was no prayer
       whatsoever made by the original plaintiff seeking any damages
       or compensation from the defendants for the encroachment
       committed by them – In absence of any such relief sought by the
       original plaintiff, the decree passed in his favour could not have
       been set aside by the High Court by compelling his legal heirs
       to accept compensation that was directed to be assessed by a
       valuer – The legal heirs of the plaintiff did not consent for such
       course to be followed – High Court could not have undertaken
       such exercise of seeking to compensate one party at the cost of
       the other without any prayer being made in that regard – Once
       the decrees passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff
       were set aside, there would be no occasion for the Executing
       Court to proceed with the execution proceedings since there
       would be no decree holding the field for being executed – Thus,
       directing the Executing Court to assess the value of the wall
       in question would be requiring it to undertake an exercise not
       supported by any decree whatsoever – The course adopted by
       the High Court does not find support u/Or.XXI, CPC – There
       being no prayer made by the original plaintiff in the suit for grant
       of any compensation nor any consent having been offered by
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                             189

                     Rajat Kumar and Others v.
     S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others

     the legal heirs of the plaintiff in that regard, the High Court could
     not have imposed such a direction on them, especially when
     there was a decree operating in their favour – Judgment of High
     Court unsustainable, set aside – High Court to re-consider both
     the appeals in accordance with s.100, CPC. [Paras 5(a)-(c), 6]

                                List of Acts
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                             List of Keywords
     Mandatory injunction; No prayer made by plaintiff for grant of
     compensation; Prayer for monetary relief not made; No prayer
     was made for damages or compensation for encroachment; Legal
     heirs compelled to accept compensation; Decree for mandatory
     injunction; Removal of alleged encroachment; No substantial
     questions of law; Miscarriage of justice; Illegal encroachment.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s).
     19552-19553 of 2017
     From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2016 of the High Court
     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA Nos. 363 and 364
     of 2008

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Ms. Vidushi Garg.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Atul S. Chandurkar, J.

1.   The appellants are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff-Om
     Parkash. The original plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.426 of 1996 against
     the respondents-original defendants seeking mandatory injunction
     for removal of alleged illegal encroachment in the form of a wall
     constructed by them on the common open space beyond the plaintiff’s
190                                                           [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


       house. He further sought permanent injunction seeking to restrain the
       defendants from raising any further construction thereon. The Trial
       Court on 06.02.2006 decreed the suit and directed the defendants
       to remove the encroachment committed by raising the said walls. It
       also restrained them from raising any further construction over the
       said walls.
       Regular Civil Appeal No.137 of 2006 preferred by the defendants
       was dismissed on 05.09.2007 and the decree passed by the Trial
       Court was upheld.
       The defendants being aggrieved preferred Regular Second Appeal
       No.364 of 2008 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court1. By the
       judgment dated 25.11.2011, the High Court disposed the Second
       Appeal with a direction to the defendants to pay an amount of
       ₹10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum being half the amount
       of expenditure incurred on construction of the walls in question. It
       further held that on making such payment, the wall would be treated
       as ‘common’ between the parties. The legal heirs of the plaintiff
       challenged the reversal of the decree before this Court, reference
       to which would be made a bit later.
2.     The original plaintiff also filed another Civil Suit being CS No.148
       of 2000 against the same defendants, this time with a prayer for
       mandatory injunction for removal of lintel of the school building that
       had been erected by the defendants on the wall of the plaintiff’s
       house. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 08.11.2004 decreed
       the said suit and directed the defendants to remove the lintel of
       the school building from the said wall. The defendants were also
       restrained from putting any lintel on any wall of the plaintiff’s house.
       Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.143
       of 2004 which came to be dismissed by the first Appellate Court
       on 05.09.2007. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred Regular
       Second Appeal No.363 of 2008 before the High Court. The Second
       Appeal was decided on 25.11.2011 and a similar decree directing the
       defendants to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- being half of the amount
       spent on construction of the wall with interest @ 12% per annum


1    For short, ‘the High Court’
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                            191

                     Rajat Kumar and Others v.
     S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others

     was passed. It was further directed that on making such payment,
     the wall would be treated as ‘common’ between the parties.
3.   The legal heirs of the original plaintiff being aggrieved by the reversal
     of the aforesaid decrees by the High Court filed appeals before this
     Court. By order dated 13.09.2013 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.8203
     of 2013 and 8281 of 2013, it was held that the modification of the
     decrees by the High Court without entering into the merits of the
     controversy was impermissible. No substantial questions of law
     had been framed while deciding the Second Appeals. On these
     counts, the judgments delivered in the Second Appeals by the High
     Court were set aside and the proceedings were remanded for fresh
     consideration in accordance with law.
4.   On remand, the High Court was of the view that the construction of
     the wall had been raised long back. There was no valuation report
     on record and the claim alleged to be put forth by the plaintiff had not
     been proved. By observing that the other party could be compensated
     in terms of money that could be assessed by a valuer and with a
     view to do justice between the parties, it directed the Executing
     Court to assess the value of the construction. The defendants were
     accordingly directed to deposit such amount in the Executing Court
     to be paid to the legal heirs of the plaintiff. With these directions, the
     decree passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the first Appellate
     Court came to be set aside.
     The legal heirs of the original plaintiff are aggrieved by the reversal
     of the said decrees and have, thus, preferred the present appeals.
5.   Despite service, there has been no appearance on behalf of the
     respondents since 23.04.2019. After hearing Ms. Sangeeta Kumar,
     learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the record, we
     are of the view that the High Court committed an error in reversing the
     decrees passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate
     Court on irrelevant considerations. We say so for the following reasons:
     a)    The initial suit filed by the original plaintiff was essentially for a
           decree for mandatory injunction seeking removal of the alleged
           encroachment undertaken at the behest of the defendants on
           the common open space beyond the construction of the plaintiff.
           According to the original plaintiff, such construction interfered
192                                                            [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


             with the right of the plaintiff to enjoy air and light through the
             ventilators as well as obstructed the passing of water through the
             common path. It found that the defendants could not prove any
             right, title or interest on the land on which they had erected the
             wall. The decree was, thus, passed to remove the wall illegally
             erected by them. In the other suit, the Trial Court found that
             the defendants had put up a lintel of the school building on the
             wall of the plaintiff’s house illegally. A decree directing removal
             of the same and restraining the defendants from doing so in
             the future was passed. Both these decrees were upheld by the
             first Appellate Court. There was no prayer whatsoever made
             by the original plaintiff seeking any damages or compensation
             from the defendants for the encroachment committed by them.
             In absence of any such relief sought by the original plaintiff, the
             decree passed in his favour could not have been set aside by the
             High Court by compelling his legal heirs to accept compensation
             that was directed to be assessed by a valuer. The legal heirs
             of the plaintiff did not consent for such course to be followed.
             The High Court, therefore, could not have undertaken such
             exercise of seeking to compensate one party at the cost of the
             other without any prayer being made in that regard.
       b)    The High Court by the impugned judgment reversed the decree
             for mandatory injunction for removal of encroachment passed
             by the Trial Court which was upheld by the first Appellate
             Court. It, however, directed the Executing Court to assess the
             value of the offending wall put up by the defendants so as to
             compensate the plaintiff in terms of money. Once the decrees
             passed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff were set aside,
             there would be no occasion for the Executing Court to proceed
             with the execution proceedings since there would be no decree
             holding the field for being executed. In such a situation, directing
             the Executing Court to assess the value of the wall in question
             would be requiring it to undertake an exercise not supported
             by any decree whatsoever. Indeed, the course adopted by the
             High Court does not find support under Order XXI of the Code
             of Civil Procedure, 19082.


2   For short, ‘the Code’
[2026] 7 S.C.R.                                                            193

                     Rajat Kumar and Others v.
     S D Adarsh Jain Kanya Maha Vidyalaya Sadhaura and Others

     c)    The High Court ought to have been mindful of the fact that
           a similar exercise undertaken by it earlier while deciding the
           respective Second Appeals and directing the payment of
           compensation to the original plaintiff was set aside by this
           Court. The High Court, on remand however again committed
           the same error, this time by directing the Executing Court to
           undertake valuation of the wall in question so as to compensate
           the legal heirs of the plaintiff in monetary terms. There being
           no prayer made by the original plaintiff in the suit for grant of
           any compensation nor any consent having been offered by the
           legal heirs of the plaintiff in that regard, the High Court could
           not have imposed such a direction on them, especially when
           there was a decree operating in their favour.
     d)    The impugned order of the High Court proceeds on a factually
           wrong premise that the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.426 of 1996
           had recorded a finding that the wall in question was a common
           wall. No such finding was recorded by the Trial Court. In fact,
           a decree for removal of the offending wall came to be passed
           by the Trial Court. Further, though the High Court has referred
           to three questions in the impugned judgment and has stated
           that the defendants urged the Court to frame the said questions
           as ‘substantial questions of law’, the impugned order does not
           indicate that the said questions were treated as substantial
           questions of law. However, the order concludes by observing
           that the substantial questions were answered in favour of the
           defendants and the decree passed in favour of the original
           plaintiff was set aside. It is, thus, clear that without an available
           question of law for consideration and also by making out a new
           prayer, the decrees passed in favour of the original plaintiff
           have been set aside. The legal heirs of the plaintiff have been
           required to accept monetary relief for which a prayer was never
           made. Such course has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
6.   For all the aforesaid reasons, we find the judgment of the High
     Court to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the common judgment dated
     02.05.2016 passed in RSA No.363 of 2008 and 364 of 2008 by the
     High Court is set aside. Since the appeals have not been adjudicated
     on merits, there is no option but to request the High Court to re-
     consider both the appeals in accordance with Section 100 of the
194                                                     [2026] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       Code and decide the same on their own merits. Considering the
       fact that the Second Appeals are of the year 2008, we request the
       High Court to consider the same expeditiously.
7.     The Civil Appeals are allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as
       to costs.

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey