The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable harm when granting temporary injunctions.

ORDER

The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the order in I.A. No.1 of 2024 Civil Original Suit No.713-A/2024 passed by learned IX District Judge, Indore (M.P.) dated 11.09.2024 granting temporary injunction against the defendant No.2 (Palm Developers) directed not to sell the disputed land elsewhere or do any construction work on it till further orders or final disposal of the case whichever is earlier. The said order is under challenge by way of this miscellaneous appeal.

02. The appellants No.1 to 4 herein are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (I, III and IV) in I.A. No.1 of 2024 and they are defendant Nos.2 and (I, III and IV) in the suit before the trial court. The respondent No.1/Mammu Patel herein is the petitioner in the above I.A. and plaintiff in the suit before the trial court.

03. The facts of this case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants/defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 for declaration to declare them that they are co-owners of suit land and partition of 20 Bighas each between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 from the suit property and seeking permanent injunction and for declaration declaring the respective three sale deeds dated 17.11.2021 are null and void.

04. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application against the defendant No.1 Anwar Patel and defendant No.2 (Palm Developers) and others. The averments in the plaint as well as application that the disputed suit property being joint property of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.1, 3 and 4 as per their family arrangement dated 28.07.1993. All had a share in this suit land, the defendant No.1 sold the suit land to defendant No.2 (Palm Developers) claiming it to be his own, the first defendant had no right to sell the property. The disputed property being jointly owned by plaintiff's parents i.e. Hazi Ishaq Patel and Hajjani Amina Bee, plaintiff-Mammu Patel, defendant No.1 Anwar Patel and defendant No.3-Islam Patel, a family arrangement was made between them on 28.07.1993. As per the family arrangement they all are in possession of their shares in the disputed property in their respective shares. The existence of family settlement deed has not been denied by defendant No.1 in the proceedings before the Revenue Court. The disputed property of joint ownership has been sold by defendant No.1 along with Dule Singh to defendant No.2 through three registered sale deeds dated 17.11.2021 by claiming that it is owned by him. If the disputed land is sold by defendant No.2 (Palm Developers) to any third party or imposes burden on it by taking a loan etc., then the plaintiff will suffer immense loss and under the facts and circumstances, it is necessary to prohibit the defendant No.2 from selling the disputed land to anyone else or making any construction in the said property. The plaintiff will unnecessarily suffer infinite loss, which will not be possible to compensate in terms of money. The plaintiff has a prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour since the property has been sold by defendant No.1 and Dule Singh to defendant No.2 (Palm Developers) is a partnership firm, the sale of property etc. is completely possible. Therefore, he filed an interlocutory application to restrain the defendant No.2 from alienating the suit land or making any construction till the disposal of the suit.

05. The defendant No.1 filed reply and denied all the allegations made in the plaint and averred that plaintiff has not sought relief of temporary injunction against defendant No.1/respondent No.1, therefore, it is not necessary for him to submit a reply. Further averred that the plaintiff has filed a suit in relation to the disputed land. According to the allegations made in the plaint on the basis of sale agreement dated 10.06.1985 for the disputed land which was executed in favour of defendant No.1. The title of the disputed land is vested with defendant No.1 and on the basis, he is claiming 20 Bighas land was arranged in f