SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

A.P.THAKER
Jigarbhai Pankajbhai Shah – Appellant
Versus
Natwarsinh Ganpatsinh Parmar – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant No.1:Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa, Advocate with Mr. Ravi N Pahwa (11493), Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.19 and 20:Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dhruv K Dave (6928), Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7:Mr. Shreyang S Vayeda (10917), Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 8, 9:Mr. Dave, Sr. Advocate with Prerak P Oza (8279), Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Case Summary

  • Gujarat High Court dismissed Appeal from Order No. 175 of 2021, upholding trial court's rejection of interim injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 262 of 2018 seeking specific performance of unregistered agreement to sell dated 22.8.2017 and cancellation of subsequent registered sale deed dated 5.7.2018. (!) (!) [42000052240002] (!) (!) [42000052240012]
  • Suit property is ancestral land; agreement to sell executed only by defendants 1-7 for Rs. 11.30 Crore (part payment Rs. 2.50 lakh), conditional on title clearance and mutation of legal heirs of deceased co-owner.[42000052240013][42000052240008][42000052240009][42000052240010]
  • Plaintiff published title clearance notice on 8.11.2017; objections raised on 14.11.2017 by defendants 1-3,9,17 claiming heirship rights, lack of consent, non-fulfillment of agreement, and directing refund of part consideration.[42000052240008][42000052240009]
  • Plaintiff issued legal notice on 4.4.2018 demanding execution of sale deed within 15 days; no reply; mutation of defendants 8-18 entered on 12.4.2018; sale deed to defendants 19-20 executed on 5.7.2018 for Rs. 7.50 Crore by all defendants 1-18 without title clearance or public notice. (!) [42000052240008][42000052240009][42000052240010]
  • Plaintiff's delay: no action from Nov 2017 objections to Apr 2018 notice (5 months), then to suit filing on 7.9.2018 (post-sale, 2 more months); oral talks claimed but implausible; disentitles equitable relief of interim injunction.[42000052240009][42000052240010] (!)
  • Trial court rejected injunction finding no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury in plaintiff's favor; noted unregistered agreement inadmissible and defendants 19-20 as bona fide purchasers. (!) [42000052240011]
  • Appellate interference with trial court's discretionary rejection of injunction limited; requires showing arbitrary, capricious, perverse exercise or ignoring settled principles; here, conclusion plausible despite some errors.[42000052240011]

Key Legal Principles Applied

  • Unregistered agreement to sell admissible for collateral purposes (e.g., specific performance suit, part performance under Section 53A TP Act).[42000052240010][42000052240011]
  • Mere lower sale consideration in subsequent transaction (vs. prior agreement) does not ipso facto prove illegality or mala fides; sellers fix price, market factors vary; irrelevant where original signatories disclaimed agreement.[42000052240010]
  • For interim injunction in specific performance suit: plaintiff must show strong prima facie case (beyond mere agreement/notice/readiness), balance of convenience, irreparable injury; conduct (e.g., delay) crucial; discretionary, equitable relief.[42000052240004] (!) [42000052240011]
  • Subsequent purchasers (defendants 19-20): paid full consideration; no mandatory public notice/title clearance required (revenue records suffice); bona fides prima facie where all heirs sold post-mutation. (!) [42000052240010] (!)
  • Ancestral property: non-signatory heirs (defendants 8-18) not bound by agreement lacking consent; cannot compel specific performance against them under Section 19 Specific Relief Act. (!) [42000052240006] (!)
  • No injunction despite potential multiplicity of proceedings or property alienation risk, where plaintiff slept on rights post-disclaimer; status quo not mandated without strong equity.[42000052240010][42000052240011]

Outcome and Directions

  • Appeal dismissed; no interference with trial court discretion; Civil Application (Stay) disposed.[42000052240012] (!)
  • Trial court directed to expedite suit disposal within 4 months; parties to cooperate; no costs. (!)

ORDER (CAV)

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 3.11.2021 passed below Exh-5 in Special Civil Suit No.262 of 2018 by learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, whereby the application preferred by the original plaintiff for interim injunction was rejected, the plaintiff has preferred this Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC.

2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to herein as per the status assigned to them before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts, which emerge from the record, are as under:

3.1 The plaintiff has filed the above stated Suit for specific performance and cancellation of sale deed dated 5.7.2018 entered into between defendant Nos. 1 to 18 and 19 & 20. It is the case of the Plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 has agreed to sell the suit land to him vide agreement to sell dated 22.8.2017 and part consideration amount was paid by the plaintiff. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it was agreed that after the revenue entry regarding legal heirs of the deceased joint owner Dilipsinh Ganpatsinh is certified in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top