Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
C.L. SONI, J.
HARSHIT INDRAVADAN TALATI - Appellant
Versus
HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DIVYESHBHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 218 of 2018; Civil Application No. 1 of 2018
Decided on : 16-10-2018
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLIII - Suit decree - Above suit is filed for declaration that two sale deeds executed by the defendant in favour of the defendant for the suit lands are null and void; that whatever documents/ agreements/ power of attorneys and any other writing done by the defendants in collusion with each other since not binding to the plaintiffs are null and void; that the defendants have no right or authority to make any construction or change in the suit lands or to transfer the suit lands to third party or to create any third party interest - Held, In the present suit, where no prayer is made for specific performance of the contract, learned judge has granted interim injunction, and the injunction application filed in the first suit is disposed of as infructuous on grant of interim injunction in the present suit. Such interim injunction in the present suit is also for the benefit of the plaintiff no.6 who is not the plaintiff in the first suit - Whether to grant relief of specific performance is within the discretion of the Court and while exercising such discretion the Court may consider the aspect of delay and the conduct of the party asking for such relief - Learned judge has found that the plaintiffs and the third parties are not likely to suffer loss which could not be compensated in terms of money if injunction is not granted - As against such consideration, learned judge has failed to consider that the appellants who invested huge amount in purchase of the suit land and in making and completing the construction of the residential scheme on the suit lands, are likely to suffer irreparable loss if the interim injunction is granted - Application disposed of. (Para 22)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal is against an order that granted interim relief in a suit challenging the validity of sale deeds and seeking declarations that certain documents are null and void. The court initially granted interim injunctions, including maintaining status quo on ownership and possession of unsold units (!) (!) .
The original suit involved claims that the sale deeds executed in favor of the appellant were invalid, and that the defendants had no authority to make constructions or transfer the land to third parties. The suit also sought to prevent any development or transfer of the suit lands (!) .
The defendants argued that the agreement in question was primarily for scheme sanctioning and implementation under relevant land and development laws, not a direct sale, and that the agreement was to be executed under specific conditions, including a time limit for completion. They also contended that the suit for specific performance was barred by limitation and that the agreement did not transfer title immediately (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the agreement was primarily for scheme sanctioning under the relevant land law, with the intent to develop the land for housing for weaker sections, rather than an outright sale. The agreement and power of attorney were linked to scheme implementation, not immediate transfer of ownership (!) (!) .
The court noted that the proceedings for specific performance were initiated after a significant delay (about 16 years), and that the plaintiffs had permitted the defendant to develop the land substantially. The court also highlighted that the plaintiffs did not press for the injunction in the first suit but instead filed a new suit challenging the sale deeds, which affected the conduct and credibility of their claim (!) (!) .
The appellate court found that the original judge had improperly exercised discretion by granting interim relief in a suit where no prayer for specific performance was made, especially considering the delay, conduct of the parties, and the substantial development already undertaken on the land. The court held that the order was passed in a manner contrary to settled principles of granting equitable relief and was based on a misapprehension of the facts (!) (!) .
The appellate court emphasized that the principles governing interim injunctions require a careful assessment of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It observed that the lower court failed to properly analyze these aspects and instead granted relief based on an incorrect assessment of the case record (!) (!) .
The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs’ claim lacked a clear basis for irreparable loss, especially since the land had been substantially developed, and that permitting changes or transfers at this stage could cause irreparable harm to the appellants, who had invested heavily in the development (!) (!) .
The order granting interim relief was therefore set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the court noting that the original order was passed in excess of lawful discretion and was not justified based on the record and principles of law (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision underscores the importance of proper exercise of judicial discretion in granting interim relief, adherence to legal principles, and careful consideration of conduct, delay, and potential harm to parties involved.
C. L. SONI, J.
1. The appeal is filed under Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') against the order dated 12.5.2018 passed by learned 14th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below application Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.569 of 2014. The appellants are the original defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.45 to 47 respectively in the above suit. The respondents no.1 to 6 are the original plaintiffs and the other respondents are the defendants in the suit. The parties shall be referred as per their original status in the suit.
2. The above suit (to be referred as 'the present suit') is filed for declaration that two sale deeds executed on 9.1.2014 by the defendant Nos.2 to 44 in favour of the defendant No.1 for the suit lands are null and void; that whatever documents/ agreements/ power of attorneys and any other writing done by the defendants in collusion with each other since not binding to the plaintiffs are null and void; that the defendants have no right or authority to make any construction or change in the suit lands or to transfer the suit lands to third party or to create any third party interest therein. The plaintiffs have also asked for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any construction on the suit lands or changing site situation of the suit lands by earmarking the plots in connection with the scheme known as 'Vallabh Villa' and 'Sumeru Duplex' proposed in the suit lands or from transferring in any manner the suit lands or creating any third party interest by making new writings/ new documents or from doing any activity for development in the suit lands.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in the present suit is that the defendant Nos.10 to 17, 24, 27, 30, 44 and other land owners executed Banakhat (agreement to sell) ( to be referred as 'the agreement ') on 14.08.1997 in their favour for sale of the suit lands and received Rs. 2,00, 000/ from them; that since the suit lands were new tenure, it was decided to take necessary permission from Government and time of four years was fixed for payment of remaining consideration and during this time necessary permissions were to be taken; that in 1999 the Urban land Ceiling Act (the ULC Act) was repealed but even after repeal of ULC Act, the defendants accepted more amounts and thereby confirmed the agreement to sell; that the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants no.2 to 44 were trying to sell the suit lands to third parties though the plaintiffs were ready and willing to get the sale deeds executed in their favour and therefore to prevent the defendants no.2 to 44 from doing so and to get the sale deed executed for the suit lands, the plaintiffs filed Special Civil suit No.688 of 2013 (to be referred as 'the first suit'); that though the defendants knew that such suit was pending, two sale deeds came to be executed by the defendants no.2 to 44 in favour of the defendant no.1 for the suit lands wherein residential scheme named 'Vallabh Vila' and 'Sumeru Duplex' is proposed, but the sale deeds are not binding to the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1, 45 to 47 have no right to make construction of the scheme on the suit lands and therefore the present suit is filed.
4. In the present suit, the plaintiffs filed application Exh.5 seeking interim injunction similar to the permanent injunction prayed in the suit. By the impugned order, learned Judge has partly allowed the application Exh.5 and ordered the defendant Nos.45 to 47 to produce with affidavit the copies of sale deeds made for 'Sumeru Duplex' and 'Vallabh Villa' (to be referred as 'the residential scheme') till the date of the impugned order and also ordered the defendants of the present suit to maintain status-quo as regards ownership and possession of the houses which are not sold till the date of the impugned order.
5. The plaintiffs no.1 to 5 of the present suit filed first suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of the agreement, wherein they filed appli
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
