IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
TASHI RABSTAN, J.
Samitra Devi - Appellant
Versus
Shree Kumar Kotwal and Others - Respondents
MA No. 17 of 2021, CM No. 8002 of 2021
Decided On : 03-11-2021
Temporary Injunction - Property Dispute - Order XXXIX Rule 1 - Summary of Order XXXIX Rule 1 - The court discussed the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the three cardinal principles for grant of the temporary injunction, viz. prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable loss. The court also highlighted the purpose of grant of temporary injunction, which is to prevent damage or wastage to any property in dispute in the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a civil original suit for declaration with permanent prohibitory injunction claiming ownership of a land. The Trial court dismissed the application for grant of stay, which was filed along with the main suit, on the ground that it was devoid of merit.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial court rightly exercised the discretion for grant or refusal of the interlocutory order based on the available material. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no scope to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial court.
Issues: The main issue was the grant or refusal of the temporary injunction based on the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the three cardinal principles for grant of the temporary injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the purpose of grant of temporary injunction, which is to prevent damage or wastage to any property in dispute in the suit, and upheld the Trial court's decision based on the available material.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order passed by the Trial court was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
1. Through the medium of this appeal, the appellant seeks setting aside of the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the court of learned Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah (for short the “Trial court”) in a civil suit titled “Samitra Devi vs. Shree Kumar Kotwal and others”, whereby dismissed the application for grant of stay, on the grounds tailored therein.
2. It is contended in the appeal that the appellant filed a civil original suit for declaration with permanent prohibitory injunction to the effect that the appellant by virtue of document executed by her husband late Krishan Lal and his brothers namely Shree Kumar Kotwal and Om Kumar Kotwal way back in the year 1967 in favour of the appellant, is the absolute owner in continuous peaceful possession and occupation of land bearing Khasra No. 1456 measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas situated at revenue village Udrana, Tehsil Bhaderwah. It is averred that since the appellant who is in cultivating possession of the suit land, the respondent No. 1 filed a petition for partition before the Tehsildar, Bhaderwah seeking the relief of partition of the land in different khasra numbers, as such the respondents have no right to maintain their claim over the suit land. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1, husband of the appellant, respondent No. 2, husband of respondent No. 3 and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have jointly sold the land falling under Khasra Nos. 351, 355, 358, 362, 363 and 367 measuring 37 kanals, besides this the respondent No. 1 has also forged the record of joint property falling under Khasra No. 1543 measuring 19 marlas by recording his name in the revenue record and sold land measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas falling under Khasra No. 3229 min without the consent and knowledge of other co-sharers. Thus the parties are managing the affairs of their respective shares, as such respondent No. 1 has no claim over the suit property.
3. It is contended that along with the main suit the appellant has also filed an application in terms of order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC which has been rejected by the Trial court after considering the written statement filed by defendant/respondent on the ground that the same is devoid of merit.
4. It is contended that the case set up by the appellant before the Trial court is that the land is under the cultivating possession of the appellant since 1967 on the basis of the alleged document which is 50 years old and as per section 91 of the Evidence Act the document which is 30 years old need not to be proved and the presumption can be drawn in favour of the genuineness of the document.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has resisted the appeal and urged for its dismissal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.
7. In the above contextual discourse, whereby this Court, while deciding the case in hand qua grant or refusal of temporary injunction, should delve deeper into the facts and circumstances of the case or not. Answer thereto is in negative. The reason being, if this Court discusses the factum of the suit property, it would tantamount to deciding the whole case and giving a particular opinion on the subject matter of the case. So better it would be to confine the present discussion to the impugned as appellant is only aggrieved thereof and seek setting-aside thereof.
8. The Trial court has, after making a discussion of the facts of the case, taken into account the requirements and ingredients for grant or refusal of the temporary injunction. The Trial court has rightly discussed the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the three cardinal principles for grant of the temporary injunction, viz. prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable loss.
9. The Supreme Court in case of Skyline Education Institute (Pvt.) Ltd vs. S.L. Vaswani, AIR 2010 SC 3221 has said that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse the relief of temporary in
The purpose of grant of temporary injunction is to prevent damage or wastage to any property in dispute in the suit.
Grant or refusal of interim relief/temporary injunction - Usually, prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of legal right asserted by plaintiff and its allege....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
A temporary injunction requires establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the risk of irreparable harm, with courts exercising discretion cautiously against trial court's findings.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.