IMPORTANT POINT
A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience; mere establishment of a prima facie case is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kekhriengulie, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kohima, Nagaland in Misc. Civil Appeal (MCA) Case No.2/2024 arising out of I.A. (C) Case No.8/2024 in Title Suit No.1/2024 and also granting of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from undertaking further construction activity on the suit land and to preserve its sanctity during the pendency of the Title Suit No.1/2024.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased a property from defendant No. 2 (Title Suit No.1/2024) on 02.10.2003 for a total consideration of Rs. 3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand) only. This property included a small Assam-type house on the land, which was also transferred to the petitioner by defendant No. 2. There is no dispute between the petitioner and defendant No. 2, as defendant No. 2 has completely divested his rights, title, and interest in the plot of land to the petitioner. This is further confirmed by the statement made by defendant No. 2 in his written statement filed before the learned Trial Court in connection with Title Suit No. 1/2024.

4. At the time of the land transfer by defendant No. 2 to the petitioner, the present respondent (defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 01/2024) resided with her family about 1 km walking distance from the petitioner’s plot. The respondent, being the elder sister of the petitioner, used to visit her family from time to time. However, she lived below the main road, i.e., the State Highway leading to the BSF camp, where there was no proper road connectivity at that time, except for a kutcha footpath. Consequently, the petitioner found it difficult to travel to and from the respondent/defendant No. 1’s place. For the interest and well-being of the respondent and her family, the petitioner proposed to sale her land to the respondent for same consideration that the petitioner had already paid to defendant No. 2.

5. Accordingly, in the year 2005-06, the respondent sold her former property and moved her family to reside in the small Assam-type house on the petitioner’s land. However, the total consideration was not paid, and the respondent only paid Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the petitioner. The transaction was conducted orally, and there was no written document regarding the transfer of land to the respondent. Despite this, the respondent did not pay the remaining amount to the petitioner. The petitioner, in good faith, allowed her sister and family to reside in the property, expecting that the remaining money would be paid. Over the time, the respondent began to ignore the petitioner’s requests for payment and took advantage of the petitioner’s generosity.

6. Thus, finding no other alternative, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the elders of D’ Khel, Kohima village Gaonburahs, to address the matter. However, the issue remained unresolved because the respondent’s husband is from another village, not from Kohima, and the Gaonburahs indicated they could not address the matter. In the second week of March 2024, the petitioner was shocked to discover that the suit property was being trespassed upon and that excavation work was underway. The petitioner requested the respondent to immediately cease these illegal acts and interference with the peaceful possession of the property, but the respondent was adamant about continuing her illegal activities. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed a Title Suit Case No.1/2024 and an interlocutory application being I.A.(C) No.8/2024 for a temporary injunction against the respondent. However, by order dated 17.04.2024, the learned Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application for a temporary injunction, even though it was acknowl