The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and implications of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1977, which protects the rights of parties in respect of immoveable property during the pendency of a suit and restricts the transfer or dealing with the property by any party to the suit, except under the authority of the Court.

1. A Civil Original Suit is filed by the plaintiffs (respondents 1&2 herein) against the defendants (appellants herein), which came to be amended with the prayer for issuance of decree of cancellation of sale deeds with further prayer for possession of suit property. It is also prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be also passed against the appellants - defendants, directing them to pull down the structures raised on the suit land for effective and smooth handover of suit land to plaintiffs or in the alternative a decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts be passed in favour of the parties after the Hon’ble Court holds the capital investment raised through transfer of land as an investment in the partnership.

2. Alongside the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an application praying therein that pending disposal of the suit, the appellants - defendants 1&2 be restrained from alienating or parting with the subject matter of the suit.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge, vide its order dated 20.12.2004 observed as under:

".............For all the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion that prima facie case for grant of the relief of injunction or any other interim relief is not disclosed. The only relief that can be considered and granted by this Court at this stage of the case is under Section 52 Transfer of Property Act to the effect that the defendants/ non-applicants shall not alienate the land in question till the lis is pending..........."

4. The appellants - defendants, being aggrieved of the said direction of the learned trial Judge have filed this appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter.

6. Mr. Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned trial Judge recorded the findings that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and that balance of convenience is not in their favour and they will not suffer any irreparable loss in case the reliefs sought for are not granted, but the learned trial Judge, ultimately, directed the appellants not to alienate the land in question till the lis is pending in view of the mandate contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1977. Mr. Qureshi further submitted that a valid sale transaction has taken place between the appellants and plaintiffs and the consideration amount has been paid to the plaintiffs and possession of the property was also handed over to the appellants. He further submitted that the appellants, in order to utilize the land for commercial purposes, obtained financial assistance from a Scheduled Bank for raising constructions on the suit land with a view to sell those constructions. It is further submitted that the constructions are being raised but in view of the order of the learned trial Judge, the appellants have been restrained from alienating the suit property, thus, the very purpose for which the suit property was purchased, would stand defeated. Mr. Qureshi also submitted that after recording prima facie case findings by the learned trial Judge that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case and that balance of convenience is not in their favour and they will not suffer any irreparable loss, the appellants could not have been, in law, restrained from alienating the land in question. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for settling aside the operative part of the impugned order.

7. Mr. M. Sultan, learned counsel for the respondents 1&2, submitted that the appeal is not maintainable, in as much as, what is reiterated in the impugned order, is the mandate contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1977. He further submitted that on the material available before the learned trial Judge and in view of its own findings recorded in the impugned order, a case for grant of injunction is made in favour of the plaintiffs - respondents and against the appellants. It is further submitted that since the matter is bei