The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of boundaries over extent and survey numbers in property disputes, and the limited scope for appellate interference with the trial Court's judicial discretion in granting ad interim injunctions.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Introduction:

One person purchases property in 1975. He claims he has purchased whatever his vendor owned. Later, after many years, in 2014, the vendor sells an extent, supposed to be a part of his total property, to another person. Meantime, some collateral litigation also crops up between the first purchaser and the vendor. So the first purchaser sues both the vendor and the subsequent purchaser. He wants the second sale deed declared illegal and also seeks injunction.

2. Does the first purchaser deserve an interim protection? The trial Court says 'yes'; the appellate Court says 'no'. What should this Court say?

Facts:

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, and the respondents the defendants in RCS No. 18/2015/C, before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, C-Court, Ponda. The petitioners, in fact, sued the defendants for a declaration and a permanent injunction. They sued in March 2015.

4. The crux of the dispute, I may note, is that the second respondent owned certain immovable property. In April 1975, he sold the property to the petitioners, through a registered sale deed. The sale deed contained neither the survey numbers nor the total extent, but it described the property clearly-with boundaries. As to the absence of the survey numbers, the petitioners contend that in 1975 no survey numbers had been assigned to the properties or, at least, the survey number had not been notified. The petitioners assert that they purchased the entire extent the second respondent had owned; that is, the property that lies between the boundaries shown in the sale deed.

5. In the 1990s, when the Government acquired a part of the property, the acquisition proceedings reflected the name of the original owner, the second respondent. According to the petitioners, they did not have the revenue records mutated. But there existed a cordial relationship between them and their vendor. So, when the government compensated the second respondent, who no longer was the owner; he handed over the amount to the petitioners. Besides that, in February 1996, the second respondent gave an affidavit to the petitioners affirming that the property belonged to them.

6. But in 2007, the second respondent tried to create some tenancy over the property he had sold to the petitioners. So they filed RCS No.3/2007 B before the Chief Judge, Junior Division, C-Court, Ponda. It is still pending.

7. In 2015, as the petitioners allege, the first respondent tried to trespass upon their property. Then, they came to know that the second respondent, on 1st December 2014, sold certain extent to the first respondent. It was on the premise that the second respondent had a larger extent at his disposal, and from that larger extent he could sell a part to the first respondent. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have sued the respondents-the original owner and the subsequent purchaser-seeking a declaration that the sale deed in the first respondent's favour was void and an interim injunction that the respondent should not disturb their possession, among other things.

Procedural History:

8. In RCS No. 18/2015/C, the petitioners applied for an ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 of CPC. They wanted the trial Court to restrain the first respondent from creating any thirdparty interest over the property and from interfering with their possession of the property. First, the trial Court granted an ad interim injunction. Later, in November 2015, it confirmed the interim injunction on the merits, after hearing both the parties. Pending the suit, the second respondent died and his legal representatives were brought on record. I have, however, continued my reference as if the second respondent were alive; it is to avoid narrative confusion.

9. Aggrieved, the respondents took the matter to the District Court in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.112/2015. The appellate Court, through its judgment dated 19 August 2018, allowed the appeal. That is, it set a