The court emphasized the importance of establishing a strong prima facie case and considering the balance of convenience in granting interim injunctions.

JUDGMENT

1. I have today rejected the Appeal from Order for reasons set out hereinafter. The challenge to the impugned order is on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to make out a strong prima facie case in order to seek an interim injunction restraining the appellants from continuing the construction work , let alone occupying the same and from changing the nature of the suit premises.

2. Briefly put the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:- The respondent herein /original plaintiff has filed Special Civil Suit No.8/2020/A before the Senior Civil Judge, at Vasco Da Gama against the appellant no.1(original defendant no.1) and other appellants(original defendant nos.2 to 10 ) who are claiming to be purchasers of premises sold to them by the appellant no.1. These premises are said to be put up on a plot bearing survey no.73/2 of village Cortalim Goa admeasuring 1775 sq. mts. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking inter alia a declaration to the effect that a Deed of Sale dtd. 1/3/2019 "Sale Deed" is void ab initio and is required to be cancelled. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was co-owner of the properties along with his brother having inherited the same from his late father Jose Pimenta. Upon the demise of his brother, the widow Leena and her children and their spouses have acquired rights in the properties. The plaintiff had granted a Power of Attorney dtd. 16/4/2012 in favour of the defendant no.1/Appellant no.1 herein for the purpose of getting mutation carried out in respect of the various properties allotted to him under a Deed of Partition and Family Settlement Deed dtd. 1/10/1993.

3. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property was fraudulently subjected to the Sale Deed by the appellant no.1 misusing a Power of Attorney granted to him.. The plaintiff claims that he noted certain construction activities being carried out on the suit property only in the year 2020 and upon making inquiries, he was shocked to learn that defendant nos. 2 to 10(Appellants nos. 2 to 10 herein) claimed to have purchased the suit property vide Sale Deed dtd. 1/3/2019. These appellants nos. 2 to 10 claim as bonafide purchasers through defendant no.1. Those appellants are hereinafter referred to as the 'Purchasers' and they claim to be protected by virtue of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff, therefore, sought an injunction which came to be granted by the impugned order.

4. Mr. Gaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants has today assailed the order on the basis that his client (appellant no.1) has acted on the strength of the Power of Attorney. It is an undisputed fact that the Power of Attorney specifically permits the appellant no.1 to deal with the suit property including by way of sale. He submitted that Power of Attorney is irrevocable and in its recitals, he invited my attention to the fact that the grantor, the original plaintiff has described the suit property as "my property" hence there was no question of co-ownership. Survey no. 73/2 forms a specific part of the property described therein and clause (4) entitles the attorney to sell the property. This includes power under clause 8 to divide sub divide or to develop the property into plots and sub plots and for such purpose to obtain NOC from appropriate authorities. The execution of the Power of Attorney being admitted, Mr. Gaonkar, submitted that there is no occasion to challenge the exercise of powers granted. He submits that the Power of Attorney has been belatedly terminated for extraneous reasons and although there was no occasion to do so.

5. Mr. Gaonkar, submits that the appellant no.1 has acted within the scope of the power granted to him and there is no occasion to question the exercise of those powers. He submits that third party rights have been created in favour of the original defendant nos. 2 to 10 and their rights cannot be now prejudiced. Mr. Gaonkar has further submitted that the learned Judge has erre