GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Dr. A.P. Thaker, J.
Harish Veljibhai Joshi through
Poa Darshan Harishbhai Joshi —Appellant
versus
Jitendra Veljibhai Joshi —Respondent
R/Appeal From Order No.140 of 2021 with Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2021 in R/Appeal From Order No.140 of 2021 with R/Appeal From Order No.138 of 2021 with Civil Application (For Stay) No.1 of 2021 in R/Appeal From Order No.138 of 2021
Decided on 1.4.2022
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Interlocutory injunction – Grant of – Appellate Court can interfere with order of trial court when it is found that discretion has been exercised by trial Court arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where Court had ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction – In present case while granting injunction Judge has ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in terms of money – There is no prima face case in favour of original plaintiff – Impugned order quashed. (Para 8)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 – Temporary injunction – Grant of – Court may grant temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such order for the purpose of staying and preventing vesting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of property as Court thinks fit, until disposal of suit or until further orders – In a given case, Court can grant temporary injunction up to specific days. (Para 23)
Result: Civil Applications disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dr. A.P. Thaker, J.—Both these Appeals from Order are filed against impugned order below Exh-5 passed in Special Civil Suit No.155/2021 by the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Vadodara dated 20.10.2021. Hence, both the matters were heard together.
2. The Appeal from Order No. 138 of 2021 is filed by the original defendant No.10 whereas Appeal from Order No. 140 of 2021 is filed by the original plaintiff.
3. The brief facts as emerged from the Appeal are as under:
3.1 The plaintiff has filed the aforesaid Special Civil Suit against the defendant No.10 and other family members of the plaintiff himself for a declaration and injunction stating that his right as an heir in the property bearing Plot No. 08 of Shri Harinagar Co-op. Housing Society and other consequential relief. Along with the Plaint, he has also filed Application below Exh-5 for injunction Application with a prayer that defendant No.10 may not make further construction over the plot in question and he may be restrained from creating any third party interest in any manner whatsoever. According to the plaintiff, he is one of the legal heirs of Veljibhai Lakhamshibhai Joshi along with other defendants and has stated that Veljibhai Lakhamshibhai Joshi has died on 14.4.1982 and the Plaintiff’s mother Pushpaben Joshi also died. That the property bearing Plot No. 8, of Shri Harinagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. situated at F.P. No. 270, T.P. Scheme No.2, consisting of Survey Nos. 184, 185 paiki, City Survey No.4 was belonging to deceased Veljibhai Lakhamshibhai Joshi and Jitendrabhai Veljibhai Joshi in the Society on and from 12.2.1976. It is a case of the plaintiff that his father as well as defendant No.2 Jitendrabhai Veljibhai Joshi being one of the heirs had suppressed the names of other heirs firstly in the year 1976 and secondly on 14.4.1982 when his father died. According to the plaintiff, Pedigree was made on 11.12.2014 in which there was no other name except two when the said transfer in the name of two persons were made in City Survey Record on 26.4.2014. According to the plaintiff, by suppressing name of other heirs, the defendant Nos. 1 to 9 have got entered their names as heirs in the revenue record and have sold the property to defendant No.10 Tatashtu Reality. According to the plaintiff, he has legal right as a heir in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 8 have sold the property to defendant No.10 by registered saledeed, which is not binding to him as it is against his right over the property as a legal heir. On all these grounds, he has filed the suit for declaration that he has undivided share in the suit property as a legal heirs and the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant No.10 is not binding to him and null and void ab-initio and the declaration that the defendant No.10 has no legal title over the property or over possession of the property as well as for removal of any of the construction if any and restraining the defendant No.10 from creating any right or transferring the property to any third party.
3.2 The suit has been resisted by defendant No.10 filed with requisite written statement and reply to the Exh-5 application. After hearing both the sides, learned Civil Judge passed the order in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant No.10 from making any further construction over the plot in question and / or making any change in the existing situation till 20.4.2022 and that the defendant No.10 shall not hand over any part from the plot in question to any third party in any manner whatsoever till 20.4.2022. It is further ordered by the learned Civil Judge that the said ordered shall remain in force till 20.4.2022 and will automatically come to an end thereafter.
4. According to defendant No.10 - appellant, he is the bonafide purchaser and he has paid huge amount. It is also contended that after getting title clearance certificate and after proper inquiry, it has purchased the land in questio
Rana Bharatsinh Jasubha v. Heirs of Valand Laljibhai Arjanbhai
Harshadkumar Kantilal Bhalodwala and Anr
Jhaverbhai Savjibhai Patel Thro’ PoA Holder Ashok J. Patel v. Kanchanben Nathubhai Patel & Ors.
Bhikhubhai Naranji Desai (Decd) by Heirs v. Chhotubhai Ranchhodji Desai (decd.) By heirs & Ors.
(1) Interlocutory injunction—Appellate Court can interfere with order of trial court when it is found that discretion has been exercised by trial Court arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or wh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a property transaction during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the suit, and the Court may grant injunction....
remedy of a co-owner not in possession, or not in possession of a share of the joint property, is by way of a suit for partition or for actual joint possession, but not for ejectment. Same is the cas....
(1) Law permits a co-sharer to continue to remain, ad infinitum, in exclusive possession of a particular parcel and, subject to well recognised prohibitions, even make constructions on it. Exclusive ....
A suit for injunction is not maintainable when the defendant disputes title, necessitating a comprehensive suit for declaration and partition.
Multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the weighty considerations and becomes part of facet of balance of convenience, for, if the disputed property is allowed to be transferred from one hand to ....
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.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
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.