Back
2009(3) Supreme 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Kishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja — Appellant
versus
Maruti Corp. & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2186-2187 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.12854-12855 of 2008)
Decided on : 06-04-2009
(2008) 11 SCC 1 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. The appellant and the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are owners of agricultural land in Survey No.36 measuring 32 acres and 38 gunthas situated in Village Nanamauva, Taluka & District Rajkot.
2. On 19th March, 1980, the appellant and the other joint owners of the suit land entered into an Agreement with Tirupati Cooperative Housing Society - a proposed Cooperative Housing society - for development of the said land upon obtaining necessary permission. The application made by the proposed Society was rejected and according to the appellant and other joint owners, on the failure of the proposed Society to get such permission, the Agreement could not be performed and, therefore, by Public Notice dated 24th April, 1988, the Agreement was declared to have been cancelled.
3. A legal notice was received from one Sharad N. Acharya, Advocate, denying that the Agreement had been cancelled, as indicated in the Public Notice. Despite cancellation of the Agreement, the Respondent No.1 called upon the appellant to give effect to the Agreement dated 19th March, 1980, executed with the said respondent for development of the said land.
4. The Respondent No.1 thereupon filed Special Civil against the appellant, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the Respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit land and for a decree for specific performance of the said Agreement. In the alternative, a decree for refund of the earnest money of Rs.1,81,000/- and damages amounting to Rs.16,30,670/- with interest @12% per annum was prayed.
5. While rejecting the prayer for specific performance, the Trial Court directed refund of the earnest money.
6. The Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed first appeal along with an application, inter alia, to restrain the respondents therein from transferring or alienating the land in question to any third party till the disposal of the appeal.
7. The High Court directed that the property in question should not be sold and no construction be raised on the disputed land.
Finding of the Court :
The restraint order on the transferees must, therefore, be held to be bad and liable to be set aside.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves the ownership of agricultural land in Survey No.36 in Village Nanamauva, Rajkot, owned jointly by the appellant and Respondent Nos.2 to 7. The land measures 32 acres and 38 gunthas (!) (!) .
The owners entered into an agreement with a proposed cooperative housing society for development of the land, which was later canceled due to the rejection of necessary permissions. Despite this, a dispute arose over the validity of the cancellation and the ongoing development activities (!) (!) .
The Respondent No.1, Maruti Corporation, filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement or, alternatively, claiming refund of earnest money and damages. The suit was initially dismissed for specific performance but directed the refund of earnest money (!) (!) .
The High Court issued interim orders restraining the sale and construction on the land, but these orders were challenged and later modified. The modifications included prohibiting further construction and sale, with the Court emphasizing the need to prevent further complications and multiplicity of litigation (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant and other owners, along with numerous transferees who had purchased plots, raised concerns about the manner and timing of the Court’s interim orders, arguing that they were issued without proper opportunity for hearing and without considering the rights of third-party transferees (!) (!) (!) .
The Court found that the interim orders, especially those issued hastily and without adequate reasoning or consideration of legal principles such as prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, were not sustainable. The orders affected third-party transferees who were not parties to the proceedings and had already begun construction (!) (!) (!) .
The Court also noted that the original agreement’s validity was questionable given the long delay (over 19 years) in initiating legal proceedings, and the fact that many plots had already been sold and developed. The Court emphasized that the balance of convenience favored allowing the owners to develop their property and that the respondent’s claim was weakened by the delay and lack of prompt action (!) (!) .
The Court set aside the interim orders passed by the High Court, including those that restrained the owners and transferees from dealing with or developing the land. It maintained the initial order that did not impose such restrictions, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the rights of third parties (!) .
The Court directed the High Court to dispose of the pending appeals promptly and stated that no costs would be awarded in this proceeding (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores the importance of proper legal procedure, consideration of third-party rights, and the need for timely enforcement of rights, especially when significant development and third-party interests are involved.
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant and the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 are owners of agricultural land in Survey No.36 measuring 32 acres and 38 gunthas situated in Village Nanamauva, Taluka & District Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’). On 19th March, 1980, the appellant and the other joint owners of the suit land entered into an Agreement with Tirupati Cooperative Housing Society - a proposed Cooperative Housing society - for development of the said land upon obtaining necessary permission under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Land Ceiling Act, 1976’) for exemption and for construction of houses for the weaker sections. The application made by the proposed Society on 29th April, 1988, under Section 20 of the Land Ceiling Act, 1976, was rejected and according to the appellant and other joint owners, on the failure of the proposed Society to get such permission, the Agreement could not be performed and, therefore, by Public Notice dated 24th April, 1988, the Agreement was declared to have been cancelled.
3. A legal notice was received from one Sharad N. Acharya, Advocate, denying that the Agreement had been cancelled, as indicated in the Public Notice. Despite cancellation of the Agreement, the Respondent No.1 called upon the appellant to give effect to the Agreement dated 19th March, 1980, executed with the said respondent for development of the said land. The Respondent No.1 thereupon filed Special Civil Suit No.299 of 1999 on 29th November, 1999, before the Civil Court at Rajkot against the appellant, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the Respondent No.1 was in possession of the suit land and for a decree for specific performance of the said Agreement. In the alternative, for a decree for refund of the earnest money of Rs.1,81,000/- and for damages amounting to Rs.16,30,670/- with interest @12% per annum. The Respondent No.1 also filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the appellant from entering into the said land and disturbing the possession of the Respondent No.1 and to further restrain the appellant from alienating the land to any third party. The Civil Court at Rajkot dismissed the said application by its order dated 29th April, 2002, against which the Respondent No.1 filed appeal from Order No.372/2000 before the Gujarat High Court, which was ultimately withdrawn with a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit within a period of 10 months. The suit was thereafter taken up for trial by the Civil Court at Rajkot, and by judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2007, while rejecting the prayer for specific performance, the Trial Court directed refund of the earnest money.
4. The Respondent No.1, thereafter, filed an appeal on 15th February, 2008, being First Appeal No.853/2008, along with an application, being Civil Application No.2405/2008, inter alia, to restrain the respondents therein from transferring or alienating the land in question to any third party till the disposal of the appeal. Since the appellant was on caveat before the High Court, after hearing the parties, the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court admitted the appeal but did not grant any stay, as prayed for, and only directed that if the property in question was dealt with in any way, that would be subject to the decision of the appeal.
5. Although, the Respondent No.1 failed to obtain any order of injunction in the appeal, he issued a Public Notice through his learned Advocate on 7th March, 2008, asking the public not to deal with the property. In response thereto, the appellant also caused a Public Notice to be published on 10th March, 2008, clarifying that no injunction order had been passed by the Gujarat High Court. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Gujarat High Court by the Respondent No.1 by way of an additional affidavit on the basis whereof, the High Court passed an order on 22nd April, 2008, dire
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
