Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 374
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
ILESH J. VORA, J
JYOTSNABEN WD/O RATIBHAI MAGANBHAI – Appellant
Versus
VIJAYBHAI RAMESHBHAI PATEL – Respondent
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 500 of 2011 | Special Civil Suit No.83 of 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR VIKRAM J THAKOR
For the Respondents: MR ASHISH M DAGLI, MR SP MAJMUDAR
The court upheld the trial court’s decision rejecting an interim injunction due to the appellant’s inordinate delay in seeking relief and failure to establish a prima facie case.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 36 - Interim injunction - Denial of injunction by trial Court based on failure to prove prima facie case - Appellants claimed share in agricultural land despite prior irrevocable power of attorney granted to a third party - Significant allegations of forgery and misrepresentation were considered. (Paras 1, 5, 11)
(B) Equity - Delay in seeking relief - Appellants failed to explain inordinate delay in filing suit and seeking injunction - Court highlighted that delay defeats equity and has direct impact on the claimed rights of the parties. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellants filed a Special Civil Suit claiming their share in agricultural land, alleging that the irrevocable power of attorney was obtained fraudulently, and despite cancellation, the land was sold illegally without their consent.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court rightly found the delay significant, no prima facie case established, and asserted that subsequent purchasers hold bona fide interests.
Issues: Whether the trial Court erred in denying the interim injunction in light of alleged forgery and undue delay by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate Court found that the trial Court did not err in rejecting the injunction application and emphasized the importance of time in claiming equitable relief which the appellants failed to consider satisfactorily.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellants claimed a share in land, alleging a fraudulent power of attorney. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellants asserted that the power of attorney was obtained under false pretenses. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. trial court's discretion in denying an injunction found appropriate. (Para 9) |
| 4. court highlighted the significance of timely action in property disputes. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. the appeal was ultimately dismissed with no grounds to intervene. (Para 12) |
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal from order is directed against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.83 of 2010, whereby the trial Court was pleased to reject the prayer of interim injunction sought by the appellants-plaintiffs.
2. The brief facts giving rise to file present appeal are that, the appellants are original plaintiffs, whereas, respondents are original defendants. The appellants-sisters filed a Special Civil Suit No.83 of 2010, claiming their ½ share in the disputed agricultural land bearing Survey No.1188/1. The appellants and other co-owners executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of one Ritesh Hada-defendant no.2 in relation to the suit land and the power to sell the property was entrusted to Mr.
Hada. The notarized agreement to sell dated 09.09.2005 was executed by the appellants and others in relation to the suit land in favour of Ritesh Hada and on the same day, by handing over the possession of the suit land to him, the possession receipt was signed and executed by the appellants and others.
Mr. Ritesh Hada pursuant to irrevocable power and based on his possession, sold the suit land to defendant no.1-Vijay Patel by executing registered sale deed dated 29.03.2007. It is the case of the appellants that, the power dated 13.09.2005 was not given by the appellants and under the guise of conversion of the land on the blank papers their signatures were obtained.
It is further alleged that, on 30.12.2006, by public notice, the power was cancelled and despite of these facts, on 29.03.2007, the land in question was sold to the defendant no.1. In the aforesaid background facts, the suit for injunction, declaration and cancellation of alleged registered sale deed dated 29.03.2007 filed by the appellants, inter-alia, alleging that, for conversion of land, the power was given and to obtain the necessary permission on the blank papers, their signatures were obtained by Mr. Hada and by misusing his authority, the land was sold to the defendant no.1 and has created false and forged possession receipts without knowledge and consent of the appellants herein and thus, the alleged sale transaction is not binding to the appellants and same is require to be set aside. The permanent injunction has been sought to restrain the respondents-defendants in transferring, alienating the land in question in any manner and shall not disturb their possession of the suit land. Along with the suit, the interim injunction prayed below Exh.5, inter-alia, praying that, the defendants be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit land and shall not disturb their possession till final disposal of the suit.
By filing written statement, the suit as well as injunction application contested by the defendants raising the issue that the appellants and others after receiving full amount of consideration, sold the suit land, for which they had executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of defendant no.2 and thereafter, executed a notarized agreement to sell and also handed over the possession of the suit land. The said transaction was completed in the year of 2005. The land in question sold by way of registered sale deed in the year of
2007. In the revenue record, the entry to this effect was mutated and since 2007, the defendant no.1 is in possession and subsequently, the land has been sold to the defendant no.3. The suit is filed after a period of five years for which no reasonable explanation come forwa
