In Brief
A tenant sued for permanent injunction claiming possession of a property since 1977. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the tenant failed to prove actual possession. The appellate courts reversed, inferring possession from an earlier suit's withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction requires proof of actual possession on the suit date through substantive evidence, not inference. The tenant could not prove possession, having paid no rent since 1991, lacked required business licences and electricity connections, and made inflated area claims. The Court set aside the appellate judgments and dismissed the suit.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.