Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Ghanshyam Meena S/o Sh. Narayan Meena – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Champa Devi W/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal Meena
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 466 of 2024
Decided on : 22-05-2024
INJUNCTION - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court discussed the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, which govern the grant of temporary injunctions, emphasizing the need to maintain status quo and prevent irreparable harm. The court also referenced Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which addresses the doctrine of lis pendens, indicating that any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of that suit. These legal frameworks influenced the court's decision to modify the earlier order to restrain the defendant from alienating the property until the suit's resolution.
Fact of the Case:
Ghanshyam Meena filed a suit for specific performance against the legal representatives of Shankar Lal Meena and Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., claiming that he had agreements to purchase agricultural land. He alleged that the defendants sold the land to Grace Colonizers despite existing agreements in his favor. The trial court had previously issued interim orders to maintain status quo regarding the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite interim orders, Grace Colonizers had proceeded with actions that violated these orders, including obtaining pattas for the land. The court recognized the plaintiff's claim but also acknowledged the legal standing of the defendant based on prior agreements and possession.
Issues: Whether the trial court's order allowing Grace Colonizers to alienate the property was appropriate given the existing interim orders and the plaintiff's claims of specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies, meaning any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of that suit. The court emphasized the need to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff while balancing the rights of the defendant who had already invested in the property.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the trial court's order to restrain Grace Colonizers from alienating or transferring the property until the suit's final disposal, reaffirming the status quo and the doctrine of lis pendens.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No.84/2022 (CIS No.84/2022), whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TI Application’) as preferred by plaintiff–appellant Ghanshyam Meena has been partly allowed. Vide the order impugned, defendant-respondent No.7 Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. has been restrained from alienating (selling) the property in question with effect from the date of the order i.e. 03.11.2023.
2. In the present appeal, appearance in caveat for respondent No.7 has been given by counsel Mr. J.M. Choudhary.
Both the counsels for plaintiff and respondent No.7 agree that the matter be heard finally as the relief in the present appeal has been prayed for against respondent No.7 only.
In view of the submission made, final arguments were heard and the order was reserved.
3. Before taking note of the arguments as raised by both the counsels on merits of the case, a brief of the facts is essential :
After obtaining the said pattas, he would execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff Ghanshyam Meena. However, the conversion proceedings could not be completed and hence, an agreement dated 05.02.2013 to fortify the earlier agreement to sell was again executed between the parties. Shankar Lal expired on 25.06.2016 and therefore, an agreement dated 13.07.2018 was executed by the legal representatives of Shankar Lal in favour of the plaintiff to reaffirm/fortify the earlier agreements dated 15.11.2005 and 05.02.2013.
(ii) However, the plaintiff in the year 2022, came to know that the legal representatives of Shankar Lal had, malafidely, sold out the land to defendant No.7 and hence, preferred the present suit for specific performance of three contracts executed in his favour and further, for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by legal representatives of Shankar Lal in favour of Grace Colonizers Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) Defendants No.1 to 6 specifically denied the execution of all the three agreements either by their father or by them. They, however, admitted the sale deeds executed by them in favour of respondent No.7. The said defendants pleaded the agreement dated 15.11.2005 to be an antedated, forged and fraudulent document.
(iv) Defendant No.7 also, while pleading against the genuineness of the agreements as alleged by the plaintiff, submitted that the land was sold out vide registered sale deeds to it even prior to the filing of the suit. The possession of the land had been handed over to it and it was in possession of the property. Hence, no order of injunction could be granted against it, there being no privity of contract between the plaintiff and it.
4. Before adverting into the merits of the case, certain facts/orders are also relevant to be taken note of :
(ii) After the service of defendant No.7 on 15.07.2022 and a reply been filed by it to the TI Application, vide order dated 1
The court established that the doctrine of lis pendens protects a plaintiff's rights in a property dispute, preventing any transfer of property during the pendency of a suit, and emphasized the impor....
Point of law: Validity of, and effect of S. 52 – Doctrine of lis pendens is based on ground that it is necessary for administration of justice that decision of a court in a suit should be binding not....
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
The main legal point established is the need to satisfy the court with reference to three cardinal principles for the grant of injunctive relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irrepar....
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
