Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M. SATHAYE, J
Nitin Marutrao Kale and Another – Appellants
Versus
Manikrao Bajirao Malgunde and Others – Respondents
I.A. No. 18449 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2025
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - Interim injunction - Appeals arise from rejection of applications for interim injunction in suits claiming specific performance of agreements - Appellants failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform contracts - Impugned orders found not arbitrary or capricious. (Paras 30, 31)
(B) Doctrine of Lis Pendens - The court observed that the doctrine does not bar granting interim injunctions but must be assessed based on facts of each case. (Paras 23, 27)
Facts of the Case:
The Appellants filed suits seeking specific performance of agreements for sale of portions of ancestral property, claiming rights based on Visar Pavatis. The Respondents executed sale deeds in favor of third parties, leading to the Appellants seeking interim injunctions to restrain further transactions. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Appellants did not demonstrate readiness and willingness to complete the transactions, and the impugned orders were justified based on the evidence presented. (Paras 19, 30)
Issues: The main issues included whether the Appellants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the necessity of granting interim injunctions in light of the doctrine of lis pendens. (Paras 19, 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Appellants' failure to take necessary actions to complete the transactions and their delay in filing suits indicated a lack of readiness and willingness, justifying the rejection of interim injunctions. (Paras 19, 30)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J
1. Learned Counsel for the parties were finally heard on 02/12/2024 and 16/12/2024 and the appeals are kept today for passing order.
BACKGROUND
2. These Appeals arise from two suits filed by plaintiff/s for similar reliefs against two different sets of Defendants. The Appellants are Plaintiffs and the Respondents are Defendants in both the suits. The parties are hereinafter referred to in their original capacity in suits.
3. Appeal from Order No. 1057 of 2023 (AO/1057/2023) is arising out of impugned order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 192 of 2021 (SpCS/192/2021). This suit is filed by the Appellants and one Mr. Sangram Jaywantrao Gade. Similarly, Appeal from Order No. 99 of 2024 (AO/99/2024) is filed challenging the impugned order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 196 of 2021 (SpCS/196/2021). This suit is filed by Appellant and same Mr. Sangram Jaywantrao Gade. By the said impugned orders, the Applications of the Appellants seeking interim injunction restraining the Respondents from creating 3rd party interest, parting with possession and changing the nature of the respective suit properties, are rejected.
4. Suit properties in AO/1057/2023 (from SpCS/192/2021) is 17 R portion of Manikrao Bajirao Malgunde and 18 R portion of Somnath Bajirao Malgunde out of Gut No. 140 totally admeasuring 2 H 63 R situated at Mauje-Jalochi, Taluka - Baramati, District Pune. Likewise, suit property in AO/99/2024 (from SpCS/196/2021) is 18 R portion of Dilip Bajirao Malgunde from the same Gut No. 140. It is material to note that in the description of all the suit properties, respective portions of lands are described with boundaries, thereby coming with a case that specifically situated portions of lands are the suit property.
5. SpCS/192/2021 is filed claiming rights in the suit property on the basis of 2 Visar Pavatis dated 13/05/2012 seeking specific performance thereof, praying for execution of the sale deeds and hand-over of the possession and for declaration that the sale deed dated 15/07/2022 executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in favour of Defendant Nos. 8 & 9 and further gift deed dated 01/07/2021 executed by the Defendant No. 9 in favour of the Defendant No. 10 are illegal and not binding on the Appellants. Perpetual injunction not to create third party interest/encumbrance is also prayed and Alternative prayer for damages alongwith interest is also made.
6. SpCS/196/2021 is filed claiming rights in the suit property on the basis of a Visar Pavati dated 31/07/2012 seeking specific performance thereof, praying for execution of the sale deed and for declaration that the sale deed dated 10/08/2017 executed by Defendant Nos. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 is illegal and not binding on the Appellant. Perpetual injunction not to create third party interest/encumbrance is also prayed and Alternative prayer for damages alongwith interest is also made.
7. The Respondent/Owners have filed written statement, denying claims of the Appellants and filing counter-claim for recovery of the amounts towards damages/compensation for loss of opportunity in proper land investments due to non receipt of money in time. Respondent/subsequent purchasers have filed written statement contending that they are bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration of the suit property.
SUBMISSIONS
8. Mr. Prabhune, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted as under. That in SpCS/192/2021, Defendant Nos. 1 & 4 - Manikrao Malgunde and Somanth Malgunde have agreed to sell their suit properties for total consideration of Rs.1,76,00,666/- each, out of which Rs.46,33,333/- has been paid to them each. Similarly, in SpCS/196/2021, Defendant Nos. 1 Dilip Malgunde has agreed to sell his suit property for total consideration of Rs.2,16,51,000/- out of which Rs.53,00,000/- has been paid t
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
In contracts for the sale of immovable property, time is generally not of the essence unless explicitly stated, and parties must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
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 emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
The court emphasized the need to consider the maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience before granting an injunction. It also highlighted the relevance of the time fixed for perform....
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
