Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court Of Karnataka at Bengaluru)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Acqua Borewell Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Swayam Prabha and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6779-6780, 6781-6782, 6783-6784, 6785-6786, 6787-6788, 6789-6790, 6791-6792, 6793-6794 of 2021
Decided On : 17-11-2021
Injunction – Grant of restricted injunction against alienation of total plaint schedule properties – against the suit schedule properties appellants herein – third parties to suit are claiming right, title or interest on the basis of development agreements or otherwise – Application/s submitted by original plaintiffs to implead appellants herein as proposed defendants is/are pending – According to plaintiffs also, appellants herein (proposed defendants) are necessary and proper parties – Therefore, before granting any injunction with respect to properties in which appellants herein (proposed defendants) are claiming right, title or interest on the basis of development agreements or otherwise they ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard – No injunction could have been granted against them without impleading them as defendants and thereafter without giving them an opportunity of being heard – Trial Court dismissed injunction application and refused injunction by observing that some of properties are evidently owned by firms/trusts/companies which have not been made parties to suit – Impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in total plaint schedule properties which has been passed without giving opportunity of being heard to appellants and without impleading them as party-defendants in suit by trial Court, is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court granting injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in total plaint schedule properties quashed and set aside. (Paras 5.1, 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 22.09.2020 in M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 and M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (CPC), by which the High Court has allowed aforesaid appeals in part and has modified the interim injunction granted by Trial Court passed in IA Nos. 1, 18, 22 and 24 in O.S. No. 4709/2019 and restricted the injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the case, the third parties have preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court to first decide and dispose of application/applications filed by the plaintiffs to implead the appellants herein as party-defendants in O.S. No. 4709/2019 after giving them an opportunity of being heard, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and its own merits and thereafter, if at all the appellants herein – proposed defendants are impleaded as party defendants, trial Court to consider the interim injunction application afresh with respect to properties mentioned above, in accordance with law and its own merits.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The Court emphasized that no injunction could be granted against necessary and proper parties without first impleading them as defendants and providing them an opportunity to be heard. This principle ensures fairness and adherence to procedural requirements (!) (!) .
The case involved a dispute over property rights, where the plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent alienation of specific properties. The trial Court initially dismissed the injunction application due to some properties being owned by entities not made parties to the suit (!) .
The High Court partially allowed the appeals, modifying the injunction to restrict alienation to a 1/7th share of the total properties until the case's disposal. However, this modification was challenged by third parties who claimed rights based on development agreements or other interests (!) .
The third parties (appellants) argued that they claimed rights over certain properties based on development agreements and other interests. They contended that they were not made parties to the suit and, therefore, were not given an opportunity to be heard before the injunction was granted against properties in which they claimed interest (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the application to implead these third parties was pending and that they were necessary and proper parties. It held that the trial Court's refusal to grant an injunction was based on valid reasons, including the fact that some properties were owned by entities not made parties to the suit (!) (!) .
The Court concluded that the High Court's order granting an injunction without impleading the third parties and without giving them an opportunity to be heard was unsustainable. As a result, the order was quashed and set aside to the extent it affected properties where the appellants claimed rights (!) .
The matter was remanded to the trial Court to first decide on the pending applications to implead the third parties as defendants. Only after they are properly impleaded and given an opportunity to be heard should the trial Court reconsider the injunction application concerning those properties (!) .
The overarching principle reaffirmed is that procedural fairness requires that all necessary and proper parties be involved in the litigation process before any injunctive relief affecting their rights is granted (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case?
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 22.09.2020 in M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 and M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (CPC), by which the High Court has allowed the aforesaid appeals in part and has modified the interim injunction granted by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH-28 (hereinafter referred to as the learned ‘trial Court’) passed in I.A. Nos. 1, 18, 22 and 24 in O.S. No. 4709/2019 and restricted the injunction against alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the case, the third parties have preferred the present appeals.
2. That respondent nos. 1, 22, 23 and 24 herein have instituted O.S. No. 4709/2019 before the learned trial Court seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants 18 and 19 (respondent nos. 19 and 20 herein) are entitled to their mother Laxmi Devi’s 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties and consequently prayed for a decree for partition and separate possession. They have also further sought a declaration that 2015 Settlement Deed is void ab-initio.
2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the plaint schedule properties consist of number of properties ranging from A1 to A40 in the said suit. The original plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1 in O.S. No. 4709/2019 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction qua the suit schedule properties. The learned trial Court initially granted ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from alienating and creating any charge and third party interest upon the suit schedule properties to the extent of the plaintiffs share, till the next date of hearing of the interim injunction application. That by order dated 26.09.2019, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 1 in O.S. No. 4709/2019 and refused to grant an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, inter-alia, holding that some of the suit schedule properties are evidently owned by the firms/trusts/companies which entities have not been made parties to the suit.
2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to grant injunction, one of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 4709/2019 preferred M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 before the High Court. The other plaintiffs also filed a separate appeal being M.F.A. No. 1849/2020 (CPC). By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly allowed the said appeals and has modified the order passed by the learned trial Court in the interim injunction application and has directed to issue restraint order qua the defendants against the alienation to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties till disposal of the case. The High Court has also passed an order insofar as the activity such as construction, improvements, whether fresh or modification, are conducted over the schedule properties, the party doing so shall be doing it at his risk and shall not be entitled to claim equity at the end.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court granting injunction to the extent of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties, the third parties to the suit have preferred the present appeals.
3.1 It is the case on behalf of the appellants that some of the suit properties for which the injunction has been granted, the appellants have right, title or interest on the basis of the development agreement/s and/or otherwise and though they are directly affected by the interim injunction granted by the High Court, they are not made parties to the suit and the injunction has been granted with respect to properties in which the appellants herein claim right, title or interest without hearing them.
3.2 It is also the case on behalf of the appellants that as such the plaintiffs have filed the application/applications to implead the appellants herein as party to the suit co
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
