JUDGMENT:- A common question about the necessity of granting a temporary injunction to restrain a defendant from creating third party interests/alienating the property pending suit, in the face of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereafter referred to as "the T.P. Act") has been raised in these appeals. It was ably argued by learned counsel for the parties therein, unfolding various facets of the question. Before adverting to the factual aspects, it would be useful to first deal with this question.

2. It is common for plaintiffs in suits related to property to seek temporary injunction only to restrain defendant from alienating the property or creating third party interests, during the pendency of the suit. Such prayers are made mostly in suits for partition and separate possession of shares in joint family property, suits for specific performance of an agreement of sale, development agreement, suits by plaintiffs in possession of property, seeking to avoid a transfer either executed or to be executed, or suits by plaintiffs not in possession of the property transferred to them, where transferor repudiates the transfer, and the like.

3. In such cases, where the plaintiffs may have established a prima facie case, the question that would arise is whether in the face of provisions of Section 52 of the T.P. Act, a plaintiff could complain that he would suffer irreparably if an injunction to restrain creation of third party interests is not issued, and could it be held that balance of convenience would lie in favour of granting such an injunction ?

4. In the case of Sharad Jamnadharji Mor Vs. Arjun Yeshwant Dhanwatey & anr., reported in 2009(4) Bom.C.R. 523, I had held that refusal of temporary injunction by the trial Court need not be interfered with, in view of protection statutorily provided by Section 52 of the T.P. Act. Arguments advanced in these appeals provided an opportunity to re-examine the question as also the correctness of the logic of judgment in Sharad Mor's case (supra).

5. Before proceeding to consider several judgments cited, it would be useful to quote for ready reference the provisions of Section 52 of the T.P. Act amended by Bombay Act XIV of 1939.

"52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto.- (1) During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir established beyond such limits by the Central Government, of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, if a notice of the pendency of such suit or proceeding is registered under section 18 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the property after the notice is so registered cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the court and on such terms as it may Impose.

(2) Every notice of pendency of a suit or proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall contain the following particulars, namely :-

(a) the name and address of the owner of immovable property or other person whose right to the immovable property is in question;

(b) the description of the immovable property the right to which is in question;

(c) the Court in which the suit or proceeding is pending;

(d) the nature and title of the suit or proceeding; and

(e) the date on which the suit or proceeding was instituted.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document