Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Nirmal Kumar Sharma @ Nirmal Sharma, S/o. Radha Shyam Sharma and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Anjumon Ara Ahmed, W/o. Syed Safiur Rahman – Respondent
FAO No.36 Of 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
Injunction - Civil Procedure - Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) - The court emphasized the necessity for specificity in injunction orders, highlighting the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm in granting such relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of rights over a plot of land, claiming ownership after an oral partition. The defendant purchased the land and sought to change its character, prompting the plaintiff to seek an injunction to maintain status quo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the trial court's status quo order vague and emphasized the need for specificity. It acknowledged the plaintiff's prima facie case but ruled that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not favor continuing the injunction.
Issues: Whether the trial court's order to maintain status quo was justified and whether the plaintiff met the criteria for an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an injunction must be specific and that the plaintiff must demonstrate all three elements: a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the trial court's order was set aside based on the undertaking provided by the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
(Devashis Baruah, J.) :
Heard Mr. S Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Mr. R. Ali appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code of 1908) challenging the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Misc(J).Case No.1188/2023 arising out of Title Suit No.92/2023 whereby the learned Trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status-quo over the Schedule A and Schedule B lands until the Court conclusively decided the suit.
3. At the outset, this Court would like to opine that the impugned order by which both the parties were directed to maintain status-quo over the Schedule A and Schedule B lands is a completely vague direction which the learned Trial Court ought not to have passed in the said manner, taking into account that an order of injunction if passed, has to be specific. The status-quo order denotes various aspects as regards possession, nature and character of the suit property, title, interest created therein etc. Under such circumstances, the status-quo order when passed ought to have been specific in respect to what the learned Trial Court meant.
4. Be that as it may, this Court for the purpose of deciding the instant appeal would like to take note of the facts involved, which led to the filing of the instant appeal. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a suit seeking declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession, cancellation of the deeds and permanent injunction. The said suit filed was on 13.02.2023 and was registered as Title Suit No.92/2023.
5. In the said suit, it is the case of the plaintiff that she is the owner of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 19.85 lechas covered by Dag Nos.1784 and 2326 and included in KP Patta No. 303, Village Sahar Guwahati Part-I under Mouza Guwahati in the district of Kamrup(M). The said land has been specifically described in Schedule A to the plaint. It is relevant to mention that in addition to the Schedule-A, the plaintiff had referred to four other plots of lands described as Schedule B, C, D & E in the plaint. However, the subject matter of the suit was only in respect to Schedule-A land.
6. It is the case of the plaintiff that there were five plots of land belonging to the parents of the plaintiff. The parents of the plaintiff were survived by the plaintiff and her brother. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Schedule A and B properties after an amicable partition with her brother fell into her share, whereas the properties described in Schedule C, D and E fell into the share of her brother. However, her brother purportedly vide two registered sale deeds bearing deed No.12594/22 and deed No.15295/22 both dated 02.06.2022 sold the Schedule A land to the defendant No.2.in an illegal manner, thereby depriving the plaintiff. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the brother of the plaintiff had expired prior to the filing of the suit.
7. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff on 18.01.2023 came to learn about the purported Deeds of Sale and apprehending that the plaintiff would be dispossessed, had instituted the suit, seeking declaration of right, title and interest over the Schedule A land; for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff and her tenants over the Schedule A land; for declaration that the registered Deeds of Sale bearing Nos.12594/22 and 12595/22, both dated 02.06.2022 are void, illegal, and for other consequential reliefs.
8. Subsequent, thereto, the plaintiff claimed that she was dispossessed from the Schedule A land and accordingly, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint, thereby seeking recovery of possession of Schedule A land by ejecting the defendants their men, materials, constructions, etc., and in addition to that claiming compensation.
9. Post fil
Injunctions require specificity and must satisfy the criteria of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
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.
An injunction requires satisfaction of three principles: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury; failure to apply these principles renders the order unreasonable.
An injunction requires proof of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, which the Trial Court failed to establish.
The court emphasized maintaining status quo in property disputes during the pendency of litigation to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
An injunction cannot be granted without a substantive challenge to the title or rights of the parties, and the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable harm must be considered.
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.
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
