Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi – Appellant
Versus
Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 252 of 2023
Decided on : 22-11-2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appellate court must respect the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting injunctions unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. The appellate court's role is to ensure that the trial court's exercise of discretion was reasonable and consistent with legal principles (!) (!) .
The law governing the grant of temporary injunction includes the requirement to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and a favorable balance of convenience. The court should exercise sound judicial discretion and not substitute its own opinion unless the order was made arbitrarily or perversely (!) (!) .
An order is considered perverse if it is against the weight of evidence, based on conjecture, or made in ignorance of the law. The appellate court should only interfere if the order is clearly incorrect or unjustified, and not merely because it would have reached a different conclusion (!) (!) .
The appellate court's scope is limited to examining whether the discretion was exercised properly and whether the order was based on factual and legal correctness. It should not reassess the entire case or substitute its own discretion unless the original exercise was manifestly unreasonable or improper (!) (!) .
The principles for granting interim relief include the existence of a prima facie case, potential for irreparable harm, and the likelihood that the balance of convenience favors granting the injunction. The court must consider these factors carefully and exercise discretion accordingly (!) (!) .
The concept of "perverse" order involves a conscious violation of law or lawfully established facts, or an order that is made against the evidence or the principles of law. The order must be so unreasonable that it deviates from accepted legal standards to be deemed perverse (!) (!) .
The appellate court should not lightly interfere with the trial court's discretionary order unless there is clear evidence of misconduct, perversity, or violation of legal principles. Overbroad or vague reasoning by the appellate court undermines the integrity of judicial review (!) (!) .
Pending transfers or transactions involving the property during litigation are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens, and any such transfer is subject to the final outcome of the suit. The court must examine whether such transfers are valid or affected by the ongoing litigation (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining the status quo during litigation to prevent unnecessary complications or transfers that could prejudice the rights of the parties, especially in cases involving property disputes (!) (!) .
The order to maintain status quo and prevent further encumbrances or transfers pending final adjudication is a key measure to safeguard the rights of the parties and ensure that the final decision reflects the true ownership and rights over the property (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further clarification or assistance.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 08.12.2022 in Appeal from Order No. 86/2022 by which the High Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents herein and thereby set aside the order of injunction which was passed by the trial court below Exhibit-5 in favour of the appellants herein.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also looked into the materials on record.
SUIT PROCEEDINGS
4. The appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs before the trial court, instituted the Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2019 for declaration, cancellation of registered sale deed bearing no. 2863 dated 23.03.2018 and permanent injunction against the respondents herein, that is, the original defendants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application below Exhibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the original suit.
6. Plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 respectively are real brothers and plaintiff nos. 4 to 6 respectively are their respective wives. Defendant no. 1 is the real brother of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 respectively and defendant no. 2 is his wife. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 respectively are the sons of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, and defendant no. 5 is the wife of the defendant no. 3.
7. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the suit property situated in Sub-Plot No. 1, Navrang Co-operative Housing Society, Survey No. 549/2, Alkapuri, Vadodara on 19.09.1991 by way of a registered sale deed bearing no. 13813 in the joint names of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and defendant no. 1. By way of one another registered sale deed bearing no. 13805 executed on the same date, the first floor of the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff nos. 4 to 6 and defendant no. 2. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 became joint owners of the suit property and their names were accordingly mutated in the city survey record.
8. The plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 decided to start a jewellery showroom on the suit property and for the purpose of development and construction, a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiffs along with the defendant no. 2 in favour of the defendant no. 1 before the Executive Magistrate on 06.04.1995. However, after remaining operational for few years, in November, 2013, the jewellery showroom constructed on the suit property stopped its operations.
9. The plaintiff no. 5 received a notice dated 02.01.2019 issued by the City Survey Officer under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inviting objections if any against the recording of change of ownership in respect of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon receiving the said notice, they enquired and found out that the defendant no. 1, on the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, had executed a registered sale deed in favour of his son, defendant no. 3 in respect of the suit property.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiffs instituted the suit along with an injunction application below Exhibit-5 seeking the reliefs as stated above.
11. The plaintiffs, in their application below Exhibit-5 for interim injunction under Order 39 of the CPC, pointed out the following:
a. The power of attorney was executed in favour of the defendant no. 1 only with a view to entrust the day to day conduct of administrative and procedural functions and not to enable the defendant no. 1 to sell the suit property. There was no intention to sell the property as it was purchased only for the purpose of running a jewellery showroom. It is on the basis of the said power of attorney that the necessary permission to put up construction on the suit property was obtained from the Vadodara Municipal Corporation in 1995. Upon completion
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such orders.
The court upheld the grant of a temporary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982, the rights of the appellants in the suit for Specific Performance against the Immovable property is protected under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Ac....
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
