ORDER : Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), by way of instant petition, has assailed order dated 25.11.2020, passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3-D/XIV2020, whereby order dated 23.11.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur, Distt. Kangra in CMA No. 598 of 2019 has been set aside and an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the nature and possession of the suit property has been passed. 2. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that on 19.11.2019 respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) instituted Civil Suit No. 325 of 2019 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Palampur against the defendant and her husband (now deceased) seeking following relief- "It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference in the peaceful possession, taking possession forcibly, changing the existing nature and character by way of raising any kind of new constructions, making any addition, alteration, modification, variation in the existing structure or in any other manner, changing the revenue entries by way of sale etc. of the existing building situated over the land measuring 00-01-00 sq mt, comprised in khewat no. 348 khatauni no. 568 bearing khasra no. 1545 as per Jamabandi for the year 2000-01 situated in Mohal Badaghwar, Sub Thesil Bhawarna, Distt. Kangra, HP may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the against the defendants with costs of litigation. In the alternative decree for possession through removal of superstructure in case the defendants succeed in causing any sort of interference or in taking forceful possession or in raising any kind of new construction over any part of the suit land during the pendency of the suit may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs of litigation.” 3. In the plaint, it is averred that father of the plaintiff (Ishwar Dass) and father-in-law of the defendant (Prem Chand) were brothers. Ishwar Dass had purchased suit property in 1965-66 in an auction and since then had enjoyed its possession. Ishwar Dass was dependent on Prem Chand for management of his local affairs, therefore, Prem Chand had represented him in the auction. The entire consideration amount was paid by Ishwar Dass. Ishwar Dass had purchased suit property in 1965-66 in an auction and since then had enjoyed its possession. Ishwar Dass was dependent on Prem Chand for management of his local affairs, therefore, Prem Chand had represented him in the auction. The entire consideration amount was paid by Ishwar Dass. The sale deed, however, was wrongly and fraudulently got executed by Prem Chand in his name. Prem Chand transferred the suit property in the name of his son (late husband of defendant), who further sold the suit property to defendant for sale consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/-. Interference in possession of plaintiff over suit property by defendant was pleaded as the cause of action for filing the suit. Application for interim injunction also accompanied the plaint. Defendant is contesting the suit of the plaintiff by asserting ownership and possession of the suit property earlier with Prem Chand and thereafter with her husband (now deceased) and herself. 4. Learned Trial Court declined interim relief to the plaintiff, however, the Appellate Court passed the status quo order, as noticed above. Both the Courts, however, concurred to the effect that the defendant and her predecessor-in-interest were continuously and consistently recorded as owners in possession of suit property in revenue records. The Appellate Court additionally noticed that the electricity meter on the suit property was installed in the name of mother of plaintiff and the verification report in this respect was witnessed by husband of the defendant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 6. Ishwar Dass died in the year 1995 and his wife Basant Kumari Sood died in the year 2019. No dispute in respect of suit property was reported till the life time of Ishwar Dass and Basant Kumari Sood. The title of the suit property in the name of Prem Chand and later his son and finally in the name of defendant has continuously been reflected in the revenue records. To same effect remained the position qua possession thereof. 7. Plaintiff has not challenged the title of the defendant. No relief has been sought seeking declaration as to the invalidity of ownership vested in Prem Chand through sale certificate or the subsequent transfers made firstly in the name of husband of the defendant and thereafter in the name of defendant. To same effect remained the position qua possession thereof. 7. Plaintiff has not challenged the title of the defendant. No relief has been sought seeking declaration as to the invalidity of ownership vested in Prem Chand through sale certificate or the subsequent transfers made firstly in the name of husband of the defendant and thereafter in the name of defendant. The vestment of title in Prem Chand and subsequently his successors never came to be challenged even by predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. 8. Once the title of the defendant is not questioned by seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law, plaintiff cannot be said to have right to seek injunction against the defendant. Reliance can be placed on judgment in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through L.R.s Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.R.s and Others, 2022 SCC online SC 258, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in almost identical facts, formulated the question as under:- “32 Therefore, the short question, which is posed for the consideration of this Court is, whether, in a case where the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned and the defendant against whom the permanent injunction is sought is the true owner of the land, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of permanent injunction against the true owner, more particularly, when the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned and can thereafter the plaintiff be permitted to contend that despite the fact that the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned, her possession be protected by way of injunction and that the true owner has to file a substantive suit claiming the possession.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter, proceeded to answer aforesaid as under:- ["35. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, it is noted that the registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 is dated 17.06.1975 and thereafter immediately the name of defendant No.1–purchaser was mutated in the Revenue record, which continued till the filing of the suit and the name of defendant No.1 is shown as an owner and cultivator and even the crop grown is also shown and when the plaintiff claims that she is in possession and cultivating the land, she would have known the above facts, if she had exercised due diligence and therefore as observed by this Court, the plaintiff(s) can be said to have deemed knowledge of the title as well as possession of defendant No.1. It is to be noted that even in the registered sale deed, it was mentioned that the possession of the entire land in question has been handed over to defendant No.1 – purchaser. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the execution of the registered sale deed and the payment of full sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed has been believed and accepted by all the courts below. Therefore, there was no reason for the trial court not to believe the averments in the registered sale deed of handing over the possession to the defendant No.1 – purchaser. The relief of permanent injunction sought by the plaintiff as such was a consequential relief, which shall be discussed herein below. 36. Therefore, once the suit is held to be barred by limitation qua the declaratory relief and when the relief for permanent injunction was a consequential relief, the prayer for permanent injunction, which was a consequential relief can also be said to be barred by limitation. It is true that under normal circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction sought is a substantive relief and the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the possession is sought to be disturbed so long as the interference in possession continuous. However, in the case of a consequential relief, when the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the said principle shall not be applicable. 37. However, in the case of a consequential relief, when the substantive relief of declaration is held to be barred by limitation, the said principle shall not be applicable. 37. Even otherwise on merits also, the Courts below have erred in passing the decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from disturbing the alleged possession of the plaintiff. Assuming for the sake of argument that the plaintiff is found to be in possession, in that case also, once the plaintiff has lost so far as the relief of declaration and title is concerned and the defendant No.1 is held to be the true and absolute owner of the property in question, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed dated 17.06.1975 in his favour, the true owner cannot be restrained by way of an injunction against him. In a given case, the plaintiff may succeed in getting the injunction even by filing a simple suit for permanent injunction in a case where there is a cloud on the title. However, once the dispute with respect to title is settled and it is held against the plaintiff, in that case, the suit by the plaintiff for permanent injunction shall not be maintainable against the true owner. In such a situation, it will not be open for the plaintiff to contend that though he/she has lost the case so far as the title dispute is concerned, the defendant – the true owner still be restrained from disturbing his/her possession and his/her possession be protected. In the present case, as observed hereinabove and it is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration has been dismissed and the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 has been believed and thereby defendant No.1 is held to be the true and absolute owner of the suit land in question. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in so far as refusing to grant the relief for cancellation of the registered sale deed and declaration has attained finality. Despite the fact that the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned, still the Courts below have granted relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 – the absolute owner of the land in question, which is unsustainable, both, on law as well as on facts. Despite the fact that the plaintiff has lost so far as the title is concerned, still the Courts below have granted relief of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 – the absolute owner of the land in question, which is unsustainable, both, on law as well as on facts. An injunction cannot be issued against a true owner or title holder and in favour of a trespasser or a person in unlawful possession.” 9. Learned Appellate Court appears to have been swayed by only one fact that electricity connection on the suit property was in the name of mother of the plaintiff. The available facts have not been evaluated at the touch stone of well settled principles. Learned Appellate Court failed to consider, whether the plaintiff had made out any prima facie case in her favour? For making out a prima-facie case, the plaintiff was required to atleast plead existence of any subsisting right in her favour with respect to the suit property. Admittedly title of the suit property is with defendant and the same is not under challenge. Such relief, in any case, would be hopelessly time barred. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she or her predecessor-in-interest were not aware about the existence of title of the suit property in the name of the defendant and her predecessor-in-interest. Plaint also does not disclose as to on what basis plaintiff was entitled to protect her alleged possession. In absence of existence of prima-facie case, learned Appellate Court was not right in setting aside the order passed by learned Trial Court. Merely because the electricity connection was in the name of mother of the plaintiff could not be a circumstance sufficient enough to rebut, even prima-facie, the presumption of truth attached to the possession entry recorded in favour of the defendant and her predecessor-in-interest in the revenue records. 10. In the given circumstances of the case, the impugned order, if sustained, will potentially cause irreparable loss and injury to defendant besides exposing her to multiplicity of litigation. 11. In light of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed. 10. In the given circumstances of the case, the impugned order, if sustained, will potentially cause irreparable loss and injury to defendant besides exposing her to multiplicity of litigation. 11. In light of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 25.11.2020, passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3-D/XIV2020, is set-aside and application of the plaintiff for interim injunction being C.M.A. No. 598 of 2019 in Civil Suit No. 325 of 2019, is ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.