The court held that a dispute regarding the actual payment of sale consideration in a registered sale deed constitutes a triable issue, justifying a temporary injunction to prevent further alienation of the property and avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Judgment on Board

1. The appellant/ defendant No.2 has preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 49-A/2023 (Praveet Shaha & Ors. vs. Kauri Shikshan Samiti Model Town Bhilai & Ors.), whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction in respect of the suit property.

2.

(a) The plaintiffs/ respondents No.1 to 7 herein have instituted a suit against the defendants seeking declaration and permanent injunction.

(b) In the said suit, the plaintiffs have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, stating therein that the suit land situated at Village Risama, Tahsil and District Durg, is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and is duly recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged that defendant No. 2, namely Harpal Singh, induced the plaintiffs to execute a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015 in favour of his educational institute on the assurance that the sale consideration of Rs.16,70,000/- would be paid after receipt of government grant, however, despite execution of the sale deed, no consideration has been paid and the plaintiffs continue to remain in possession of the suit land. It is further alleged that the defendants are now attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and are trying to dispossess them without any lawful authority. Hence, asserting prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, the plaintiffs have sought grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property during pendency of the suit.

3.

(i) Per contra, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed reply to the said application and denied all the allegations and submitted that the suit land was validly sold by the predecessors of the plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015 for a total consideration of Rs.16,70,000/-, which, as recorded in the sale deed itself, was fully paid and acknowledged by the vendors, and possession was also handed over to the defendants. It is further contended that the description of the suit property in the application is vague and insufficient for proper identification. The defendants have stated that subsequent mutation proceedings were initiated, wherein objections were raised by the plaintiffs on false grounds of non-payment of part consideration, which were later resolved, and additional amounts were also paid under pressure. It is further submitted that the defendants are in possession of the land and have been cultivating the same, whereas the plaintiffs have unlawfully interfered with the crop and initiated multiple proceedings, including criminal complaints and revenue litigation. The defendants have also relied upon subsequent mutation orders passed in their favour by the competent revenue authorities, which have been upheld in appeal. It is thus contended that the present suit and application have been filed with mala fide intention to avoid the effect of the registered sale deed and to harass the defendants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case, balance of