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.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Mehul Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr. A.R. Kadri for the appellant-original defendant No. 2 and learned advocate Mr. Kishore Prajapati for respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani for respondent No. 3-original defendant No. 1.

2. By way of the present Appeal From Order, the appellant has challenged the order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 193 of 2021, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the Notice of Motion below Exhibit 32 filed by the plaintiffs and directed the defendants to maintain status-quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit property.

3. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal are as under:

3.1 The respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit No. 193 of 2021 with regard to the suit property bearing Survey No. 620/1/1 admeasuring about 3339 meters situated at Naroda, Taluka Asarwa, District Ahmedabad. After implementation of Town Planning Scheme No. 121, the said land has been allotted as final plot No. 31/1 admeasuring 2003 meters.

3.2 The case of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are that the suit property is an ancestral property and they have right and share in the suit property. However, the defendant No. 1-respondent No. 3 sold the suit property to defendant No. 2 by executing a registered sale deed dated 10.11.2020. The prayers made in the plaint are basically for cancellation of sale deed and claiming share in the property and permanent injunction.

3.3 Exhibit-5 application came to be dismissed for default by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, fresh injunction application on permission of the learned trial Court came to be filed being Exhibits 31 & 32 and the same came to be allowed on 13.10.2023 by the learned Chamber Judge, Court No. 25, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, whereby defendant No. 2 was directed to maintain status quo, qua title and possession of the suit property till final disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, the present appellant is before this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehul Shah for the appellant has submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for setting aside the sale deed dated 10.11.2020, share in the property and for relief of the permanent injunction. It is submitted that there is no prayer for either partition or for possession of the property in question.

4.1 It is the submission of learned senior counsel that in the revenue record originally the properties stood in the name of Ramjibhai and Muljibhai . Upon partition amongst the brothers, the suit property came in the share of Ramjibhai and upon the death of Ramjibhai, the property was mutated in the names of son of Rajeshbhai and defendant No. 1, who is one of the son of Ramjibhai. Thereafter, there was a partition amongst the heirs of Ramjibhai and the suit property came in the share of Shankarlal Ramjibhai Dabhi and thereafter the suit land was sold to the present appellant by way of the registered sale deed dated 10.11.2020. The mutation entry of sale deed was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Mamlatdar, which was unsucessful. An appeal is pending against the order of Mamlatdar before the Deputy Collector.

4.2 It is submitted that since the suit land was purchased for development, thereafter the suit land was converted into non-agriculture land by the order of the competent authority on 10.08.2020 and the amount of the premium was also paid by the present appellant. Commencement certificate (Rja Chithi) was issued by the Ahmedabad Municipal Commissioner on 31.05.2021 and the RERA Authority has also issued Registration Certificate of the Project on 23.07.2021. The present suit was instituted on 06.02.2021. For a prolonged period of 2 years, the plaintiffs did not pursue injunction application, and resultantly, the same came to be dismissed for default. The