Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 793
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Mahendra Magruram Gupta & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Rajdai Shaw & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 6544-6545 of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (C) No(s). 37012-37013 of 2013
Decided On : 08-05-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Amit K. Pathak, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Siddhant Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
In appeal to High Court against order of Trial Court refusing to grant injunction pending disposal of suit, High Court could not have dismissed substantive portion of suit itself and direct that remaining part of suit be agitated in a suit filed by defendant.
Headnote:
Injunction - Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction - Denial of relief of temporary injunction - In an appeal to High Court against order of Trial Court refusing to grant injunction pending disposal of suit, High Court could not have dismissed substantive portion of suit itself and direct that remaining part of suit be agitated in a suit filed by defendant - Approach adopted by High Court is completely illegal and unsustainable in law - There was no occasion for High Court to consider the agreements while deciding application for interim relief - Legality, validity, and admissibility of those documents were matters to be considered in suit during trial - Suit filed by appellants restored before Civil Court to its original number - Pending disposal of suit, there shall be direction restraining respondents-defendants from dispossessing appellants. (Paras 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in which their prayer for interim relief of temporary injunction came to be dismissed by Trial Court on 21.12.2012. In appeal against this order, High Court by order impugned herein virtually dismissed suit.
Findings of Court:
Pending disposal of this suit, there shall be a direction restraining respondents-defendants from dispossessing appellants.
Result : Appeals allowed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The short facts necessary for our purpose are that three brothers namely, Mr. Magruram Chotanki Gupta, Mr. Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta and Mr. Baburam Chotanki Gupta were co-tenants of the suit property. The appellants are descendants of Mr. Magruram Chotanki Gupta while respondent no. 1 is the descendant of Mr. Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta. The appellants’ case is that by a notarised affidavit dated 22.02.1990, Mr. Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta (respondent no. 1’s predecessor) transferred his rights in the tenanted premises to Mr. Magruram Chotanki Gupta, i.e., their predecessor-in-interest. Subsequently, after Mr. Deepnarayan’s death, his widow Smt. Antadevi signed a declaration dated 18.04.1998 relinquishing her rights in the suit property in favour of appellant no. 1.
3. Relying on these documents, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in which their prayer for interim relief of temporary injunction came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 21.12.2012. In appeal against this order, the High Court by the order impugned herein virtually dismissed the suit. Before adverting to the reasoning adopted by the High Court for virtually dismissing the suit while considering an application for injunction, we will first reproduce the relevant portion of the prayers in the suit [Civil Suit (L) No. 2217 of 2012.] filed by the appellants before the Bombay City Civil Court;
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the notarized Agreement dated 22.02.1990 executed by Shree Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta in favour of the Plaintiff No.1’s father Mr. Manguram Chotanki Gupta is valid, legal and the same is binding upon the Defendant No.1 and/or anyone claiming through/for and on behalf of the Defendant No.1;
(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the notarized Agreement dated 18.04.1998 executed by Smt. Antadevi in favour of the Plaintiff No.1 is valid, legal and the same is binding upon the Defendant No.1 and/or anyone claiming through/for and on behalf of the Defendant No.1;
(c) The Defendant Nos.1 to 6 be restrained by an order of permanent perpetual injunction from dispossessing the Plaintiffs from Suit premises viz. Shop No.5 Bajarang Krupa Building situated at 220- 222, N.M. Joshi Marg, Parel, Mumbai - 400 013;
(d) The Defendant Nos.1 to 6 be restrained by an order of permanent perpetual injunction from disturbing Plaintiffs continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted actual physical possession of the Suit premises viz. Shop No.5 Bajarang Krupa Building situated at 220-222, N.M. Joshi Marg, Parel, Mumbai - 400 013;
(e) The Defendant Nos.1 to 6 and/or anyone claiming through/for and on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 be restrained from creating a third party interests of whatsoever in nature viz. safe, gift, will, exchange, mortgage, lease or otherwise in respect of the Suit premises viz. Shop No.5 Bajarang Krupa Building situated at 220-222, N.M. Joshi Marg, Parel, Mumbai - 400 013.”
4. It is also relevant to note that respondent no. 1 also instituted his own suit [Suit No. 443 of 2013] before the High Court against the appellants for recovery of possession, permanent injunction, and mesne profits with respect to the same property.
5. While it is not necessary to refer to the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court in denying the grant of interim relief to the appellants, we will refer to certain portions of the impugned order which are not only inconsistent with one another but are also inappropriate and contrary to law.
6. While recording the submission of respondent no. 1, who is defendant no. 1 in the appellants’ suit, that he will not interfere with the possession of the appellants without an order or decree in the suit for possession instituted by him, the High Court observed:
“2. The possession could be protected until respondent No.1 followed due legal process. The respondent No.1 has followed due legal process by filing Suit No.443 of 2013 in this Court. The res
