A plaintiff's claim of possession influences their rights under sections 52 and 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and a prima facie case is essential for obtaining interim injunctions.

The Court: In a suit for specific performance of two development agreements both dated 25th October, 2025 by which the plaintiff/petitioner agreed to develop two different immovable properties respectively situate and lying at premises No.42C, Serpentine Lane, P.O. Entally, P.S. Muchipara, Kolkata- 700 014 measuring about 4 cottahs 4 chittacks and 15 sq.ft. and at premises No.42D, Serpentine Lane, P.O. Entally, P.S. Muchipara, Kolkata- 700 014 measuring about 1 cottah 3 chittacks and 15 sq.ft. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘said properties’), this application, inter alia, for injunction has been made.

The matter appears to have a chequered history. The suit was initially filed in 2023 in the commercial division of this Court and was number as CS/213/2023. In the said suit, on the allegation that the development agreements have been terminated on 1st September, 2020, the plaintiff had filed an interlocutory application being GA/1/2023. The ad interim order of injunction was refused on the ground that the plaintiff/petitioner was protected under the provisions of Sections 52 and 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said Act’) as the plaintiff/petitioner had specifically averred to be in possession of the said properties. The plaint was thereafter returned back for being presented in the ordinary original civil division as the same did not arise out of a commercial dispute as specified under Section 2 (1)(c)(xi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . The parties were also sent to mediation. The mediation did not materialize as a consequence whereof the present suit has been filed being CS/58/2025.

In this application the plaintiff seeks an order of injunction on the ground that a fresh termination notice has been issued on 21st April, 2025. The plaintiff says that protection under Section 52 of the 1882 Act is not an absolute protection available to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, if the defendants transfer the said properties to any third party, then the said third party may put forth a defence of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice to eliminate the protection under Section 52 of the 1882 Act available to the plaintiff/petitioner. The petitioner, in this context, relies upon the judgment reported in AIR 1988 Cal 25 (Sm. Muktakesi Dawn & Ors. vs. Haripada Mazumdar & Anr.) and a recent Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3538 (Ramakant Ambala Choksi & Ors. vs. Harish Ambala Choksi & Ors.). The plaintiff also relies upon the judgment reported in 2011 SCC Online Cal 9 (Amrita Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kanak Projects Limited & Anr.) as also on 2022 SCC Online Cal 3840 (Sourav Sarkar vs. Hirak Ranjan Sarkar & Anr.) in support of an ad interim order of injunction to be passed in his favour.

On behalf of the defendants it is submitted that the plaintiff despite having undertaken to develop the said properties has done nothing for over the years. By referring to the date of the development agreement i.e. 25th October, 2017, the defendants say that previously an ad interim order of injunction prayed by the plaintiff was refused. No new case or change in circumstances has been shown by the plaintiff to seek ad interim order of injunction. In the previous round of the litigation the termination notice was dated 1st September, 2020. Here the plaintiff alleges that the termination notice is dated 21st April, 2025. There has been no change in circumstances in between 2020 and 2025 when two termination notices have been issued. The plaintiff has not been able to make out any prima facie case or the balance of convenience and inconvenience to be in his favour to obtain an ad interim order of injunction. The defendants, therefore, say that the matter should be heard on affidavits and no ad interim order of injunction should be granted at this stage.

After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, as also the judgments cited by the plaintiff,