The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has set aside a temporary injunction protecting a plaintiff's alleged possession of a disputed property in a specific performance suit, ruling that the trial court failed to provide a reasoned, prima facie finding on the actual state of possession. The Division Bench, comprising Justice D. Ramesh and Justice Alapati Giridhar, emphasized that courts are obligated to record specific satisfaction regarding prima facie evidence, the balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss before granting such relief. Consequently, the appellate court has remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh determination.

The litigation arises from a dispute over 2.19 cents of property located in the Prakasam district. The plaintiff claimed that he entered into an agreement of sale on October 3, 2009, having allegedly paid a consideration of Rs 1.5 crore, and argued that he had been in peaceful possession of the land since that time. When he alleged that the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession and alienate the property, he moved the trial court for two distinct injunctions: one to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession, and another to bar them from alienating the property during the pendency of the suit.

While the trial court granted both injunctions, the High Court identified significant procedural lapses. The bench noted that the trial court ’s order was essentially a reflection of the pleadings rather than a judicial evaluation of the evidence. Regarding the evidentiary standards for injunctions, the High Court stated, "The Courts should not go for a ' mini trial ' in a petition filed for temporary injunction , but the Courts are supposed to record its satisfaction on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss ."

A central point of contention in the appeal was the unexplained 12-year delay in filing the suit. The defendants, represented by counsel, argued that the agreement was a fabricated document, suggesting the plaintiff had misused signed, blank stamp papers that were originally provided as security for a separate Rs 3 lakh loan in December 2019. The defendants further pointed to a survey certificate issued by the Mandal Surveyor in 2022, which indicated that one of the defendants, not the plaintiff, was in actual possession of the land.

The High Court found that the trial court had incorrectly shifted the burden of proof onto the defendants to disprove the plaintiff's claims, without the plaintiff first discharging his own initial burden to establish a prima facie case. Referring to established legal precedents, the bench reiterated that a plaintiff cannot expect the court to restrain a property owner after such a significant, unexplained period of inaction. "The Plaintiff must establish the existence and enforceability of the alleged agreement and cannot seek to restrain the owner from dealing with the property after an inordinate and unexplained lapse of time," the Court remarked.

The appellate bench also addressed the request for a status quo order, ultimately declining to grant one. The judges reasoned that they could not establish which party held possession immediately before the suit was instituted. Furthermore, the court underscored that the fabrication of documents or false claims of possession could lead to serious legal consequences. Citing sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—which have replaced specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code—the court highlighted that creating false evidence in judicial proceedings is a criminal act, punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment and monetary fines. This observation was intended as a warning to deter parties from misrepresenting facts in property litigation, a practice the court observed has become increasingly rampant in lower courts.

Regarding the second injunction—which prohibited the defendants from alienating the property—the High Court disposed of the appeal by recording an undertaking from the defendants. The defendants explicitly agreed not to sell, gift, or mortgage the property without the express permission of the trial court until the final disposal of the suit. This effectively neutralized the need for the second injunction while protecting the plaintiff’s potential interest in the property’s eventual specific performance outcome.

The court did not offer an opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute, particularly the allegations regarding the Rs 1.5 crore payment and its potential implications for the parties under the Income Tax Act. It suggested that such issues remain open for the parties to litigate before the trial court, or for the defendants to raise with the appropriate income tax authorities.

In its final direction, the High Court ordered the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, setting a strict timeline of four months from the receipt of the judgment. The bench mandated that both parties must cooperate with the trial court to ensure this deadline is met. Should either party intentionally protract the proceedings, the trial court has been granted the authority to impose costs or proceed with the case based on the merits of the available evidence. This ruling serves as a significant reinforcement of judicial standards in interim relief matters, insisting that trial courts maintain clear records of their reasoning, especially when dealing with long-delayed property claims. The matter now returns to the trial court, which is tasked with reassessing the evidence regarding possession and ensuring that any future orders are fully supported by documented findings.