No Temporary Injunction Without Prima Facie Proof of Land Ownership: High Court

A dispute over land ownership alone will not earn a temporary injunction — an applicant must show acceptable prima facie evidence in support of the claim. Merely being in possession, claiming to hold a deed, or mentioning mutation is not enough to obtain an injunction. The High Court made these observations in a recent judgment that could prove significant for countless land-dispute cases across the country.

A single bench of Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan delivered the decision, dismissing an application arising from a land ownership dispute in Shibganj, Chapainawabganj. The judgment was delivered on 10 September and published on 18 October.

The plaintiffs — Md. Ishak Ali (deceased) and his heirs — claimed they had bought the disputed land through a deed dated 9 February 1944 and had possessed and enjoyed it ever since. They alleged that other people's names had been wrongly included in the land record (khatian). They also claimed ownership on the basis of a judgment and decree obtained in a title suit in 1977.

According to the plaintiffs, their mutation was later cancelled and the land was leased out to others. To protect their rights over the land, they filed a suit and sought a temporary injunction alongside it.

The government side, however, argued that the land falls under vested property. They also raised objections about the authenticity of the deed presented by the plaintiffs and of the earlier suit's judgment and decree.

The case had travelled a long road. The trial court first granted a temporary injunction and later withdrew it. The Additional District Judge then sent the case back, directing an examination of whether the land falls under vested property and whether, in that situation, the main suit can proceed in accordance with the law. The plaintiffs filed a civil revision in the High Court against that decision.

Reviewing the documents, the High Court found that a key basis of the plaintiffs' ownership claim was an unregistered deed from 1944. Questions also remained over the authenticity of the 1977 title suit's judgment and decree — the certified copy presented in court did not match the relevant case register.

Although the plaintiffs spoke of mutation correction and a corrected SA khatian, they could not submit the relevant khatian or mutation documents to the court. For these reasons, the High Court held that the necessary prima facie evidence in support of the ownership claim had not been established.

In the judgment, the court said that before granting a temporary injunction it is essential to verify whether there is acceptable evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim. Whether the main suit itself can be filed in accordance with the law must also be considered. The court discussed sections 7 and 13 of the Vested Property Return Act, 2001. However, as the plaint of the main suit was not placed before the High Court, the court gave no final decision on whether the suit is legally maintainable.

The High Court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to show sufficient prima facie evidence for their ownership claim and that no legal error justifying interference with the lower court's decision could be found. The court then discharged the rule in the civil revision and withdrew the earlier interim order.

At the same time, the court directed the lower court to dispose of the case as quickly as possible without unnecessary delay, if it remained pending.

The message of the ruling is clear: a temporary injunction is not automatic protection. Possession of land or a claim of holding a deed will not suffice — the burden of establishing a prima facie basis for the claim rests with the applicant. Lawyers believe this observation will carry weight in how lower courts consider injunction petitions in land disputes in the days ahead.