Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, J.
Gaurav Rajeshbhai Desai – Appellant
Versus
Yagyanarayan Prabhunath Mishra – Respondent
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.986 OF 2023, WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17755 OF 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Shailendra Kanetkar i/by Adv. Shivraj Patne & Adv. Bharat Thorat
For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar a/w. Adv. Pranay Singh i/by Legal Vision
In competing title claims over immovable property with pending suits, courts must restrain both parties from creating third-party interests for status quo parity, preventing multiplicity and irreparable harm.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 104 r/w Order 43 Rule 1(r) - Temporary injunction - Where both parties assert competing rights over immovable property with suits pending adjudication, equity demands parity by restraining both from creating third-party interests to maintain status quo, prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and avoid irreparable injury - Principles: prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury - Appellate interference justified if discretion exercised erroneously - Cited: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719; Maharwal Khewaji Trust v. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488; Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727; Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656. (Paras 22-26, 28-30)
(B) Unregistered agreement for sale - Cannot confer enforceable proprietary rights; effect pending trial - Knowledge of lessee possession not notice of superior contractual right. (Paras 28-29)
Facts of the case:
Owners acquired property under registered conveyance after expiry of fixed-term leases; instituted suit for possession and injunction against lessees holding over, who claim under prior unregistered agreement and run institutions; trial court restrained owners from third-party dealings but rejected similar relief against lessees.
Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside; lessees restrained from creating third-party rights, title or interest pending final disposal of suit; trial court directed to expedite disposal.
Issues: Whether parity required in interim restraints against third-party interests; impact of alleged suppression of prior agreement; entitlement to protection despite competing claims.
Ratio Decidendi: In property disputes with mutual suits, denying interim restraint to one party while granting to other imbalances equity, alters status quo, risks infructuous decree; unregistered agreement's validity for trial; non-disclosure not disentitling where suits referenced.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - When both parties assert competing rights over immovable property with suits pending, equity requires parity by restraining both from creating third-party interests to preserve status quo, prevent multiplicity, and avoid irreparable injury (!) (!) (!) .
What is the right to interim injunctive relief when both parties assert competing rights over immovable property with pending suits? What is the effect of an unregistered agreement on title and third-party rights? What are the grounds for setting aside an order that denies interim relief to one party while granting it to the other in a property dispute?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. leases expired; appellants acquired property rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. denial of injunction parity causes irreparable harm. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. appellants suppressed prior agreement and suit. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. equity demands mutual restraint on third-party interests. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. unregistered agreement ineffective; no proven suppression. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. set aside order; restrain respondents pending trial. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
KAMAL KHATA, J.
1. By this Appeal from Order under Section 104 , read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellant/Original Plaintiff challenges the impugned Order dated 3rd May 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, Dist. Thane, whereby the Appellants’ application for temporary injunction, popularly known as Exhibit-5 Application, against the Respondent/Original Defendants came to be rejected.
Brief facts :
2. The Appellants as joint owners are entitled to agricultural land bearing Survey No. 89, Hissa No. 01A + 1 B/2A admeasuring 5060.00 sq.mtrs. situate at Village Chikanghar Taluka Kalyan, Kalyan West, District Thane 421 301 (referred to as the ‘larger property’).
3. Under a registered Indenture of Lease dated 24th April 1968 (first Lease Deed), one Mr. Madharao Narayan Mahesh, the owner of the larger property, granted rights to the Respondent No.1 to lease land admeasuring 4060 sq.yds bearing survey No. 89, Hissa No. 1 for 50 years on monthly rent of ₹ 200/- per month (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).
4. Under another registered Indenture of Lease Madhavrao Narayan Mahesh dated 16th July 1971 (second Lease Deed), granted rights to Respondent No.1 to lease an area admeasuring 2115.5 sq.yds bearing survey no. 88 Hissa No.1 for 75 years.
5. The Appellants acquired the larger property by a Deed of Conveyance dated 28th August 2014 from the original owners and accordingly, was entitled to recover the land from the Respondent No.1 as the 50 year lease period expired on 23rd April 2018 and the second lease was terminated by notice.
6. The Respondent No.1 instituted a Civil Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, Dist. Thane for specific performance and declaration that the Sale Deed dated 28th August 2014 executed in favour of the Appellant is null and void. The Court was pleased to allow the Exhibit 5 application for interim injunction in favor of the Respondents and against the Appellants, thereby, restraining them from dispossessing the Respondent without due process of law and from creating any obstruction in running the school pending the final adjudication.
7. The Appellants accordingly instituted a Special Civil Suit bearing No. 18 of 2023 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, Dist. Thane seeking recovery of possession of the Suit property and permanent injunction from creating third party interest against the Respondents. By the impugned Order, the Ld. Trial Court declined to grant interim injunction restraining the Respondent from creating third party rights in the suit property. Consequently, compelling the Appellants to file the present the Appeal.
Submissions by the Appellants
8. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants, submits that by an Order dated 2nd August 2022 passed in Exhibit 5 Application in Special Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017, the Ld. Trial Court has restrained the Appellants from creating any third-party rights in this Suit property. However, the same Trial Court denied a similar relief to the Appellants against the Respondents, in effect, permitted the Respondents to create third party rights pending final adjudication. According to him, such an approach is contrary to law, equity and good conscience.
9. It is submitted that permitting the Respondents to create the third-party interest would result in mul
