Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.A. DESAI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Gangubai Babiya Chaudhary and others, Appellants
Versus
Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and others etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3152-3153 of 1982, D/- 13-5-1983
Partnership - Suit a notice of motion - Interim injunction - Petitioners questioning validity of order granting use of F. S. I. for whole land including land on which plaintiffs claimed title, an interim injunction was obtained restraining use of F. S. I. by respondents - Subsequently, this interim order was vacated - After an unsuccessful appeal, present appeal has been filed by special leave - Plaintiffs have a prima facie case to enable them to obtain an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession as also restraining the respondents from using F. S. I. for whole of land - Whole plot is around 17,000 sq. metres - Plaintiffs claimed title to and possession of an area admeasuring 8006.04 sq. metres - Use of F.S.I. is granted to respondents on footing that they are entitled to put up construction over entire area admeasuring 17,000 sq. metres - It is also necessary to examine where balance of convenience lies - Plaintiffs have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour - Similarly respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a partnership with defendants Nos. 3 and 4 contributing land involved in dispute as their capital and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 bringing in cash contribution and this partnership is dissolved whereby respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken cash and land involved in dispute has gone to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 - Held, Court may have to examine whether party seeking the assistance of Court was at any time in lawful possession of property and if it is so established one would prima facie ask other side contesting the suit to show how the plaintiffs were dispossessed – Court pin-pointed this question and heard the submission – Court refrain from discussing the evidence and recording our conclusions because evidence is still to be led and the contentions and disputes have to be examined in depth and any expression of opinion by this Court may prejudice one or other party in having a fair trial and uninhibited decision - Having given matter our anxious consideration, Court are satisfied that this is not a case in which interim injunction could be refused situation may become irreversible by time the dispute is decided and would preclude fair and just decision of matter - If on contrary injunction is granted as prayed for respondents are not likely to be inconvenienced because they are in possession of about 9,000 sq. metres of land on which they can put up construction - Court accordingly allow both appeals set aside decision of learned single Judge vacating injunction in both the matters as well as decision of appellate Bench and order that respondents are restrained from interfering with possession of plaintiffs-appellants of the suit land - Respondents are further restrained from using F.S.I. on the footing that they are in possession of whole of the land - Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appeal concerns a dispute over land ownership and use, specifically involving a property of approximately 17,000 square meters, with the plaintiffs claiming possession over a part of the land and the defendants asserting rights based on partnership and land contributions (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs initially obtained an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with their possession and from using Floor Space Index (F.S.I.) for the entire land, but this order was later vacated by a lower court, leading to the current appeal (!) .
The Court examined whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case sufficient to justify granting an interim injunction, considering factors such as the plaintiffs' possession, the balance of convenience, and the potential irreversibility of allowing the defendants to use F.S.I. over the entire land (!) (!) .
It was observed that the case involved complex transactions, including the dissolution of a partnership and land contributions, which complicate the factual matrix and require a thorough examination of evidence during the trial (!) .
The Court emphasized that, at this stage, it would refrain from making definitive findings on the facts to avoid prejudicing the parties and to ensure a fair trial (!) .
The Court concluded that granting the interim relief was appropriate to prevent irreparable harm, noting that allowing the defendants to use F.S.I. over the entire land could render the final decision impossible or difficult to implement fairly (!) .
Accordingly, the Court set aside the decisions that vacated the interim injunction and ordered that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and from using F.S.I. over the entire land until the final determination of the case (!) .
The Court also directed that the hearing of the main suit and related writ petition be expedited, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing the case to reach a just resolution (!) .
No costs were awarded in this matter, reflecting the Court’s view of the case’s circumstances (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this case.
Judgment
DESAI, J.:- Appellants filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 who were the recorded owners of the land bearing Survey No. 32 (part) and 33 (part) equal to C. T. S. Nos. 74, 75, 84, 84 (1 to 7), 95, 95 (1 to 4) of village Kurar, Malad, Bombay admeasuring 8006.04 sq. metres. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 claimed to have entered into partnership with defendants 1 and 2. In this suit a notice of motion was taken out for interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner with the posession of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit. Interim injunction appears to have been granted. In an appeal, a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court directed the plaintiffs to file a separate suit in the High Court for declaration of the title and for injunction, whereupon the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the City Civil Court was withdrawn and suit bearing No. 1811 of 1980 was filed on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. A notice of motion was taken out for interim injunction which was granted by learned single Judge of the High Court, with a reservation for reconsideration of the order on the happening of certain events set out in the order. It appears that the respondents moved the High Court for vacating the order and the interim injunction was vacated. After an unsuccessful appeal to the Division Bench, this appeal by special leave is filed.
2. In a writ petition filed by the petitioners questioning the validity of the order granting the use of F. S. I. for the whole land including the land on which the plaintiffs claimed title, an interim injunction was obtained restraining the use of the F. S. I. by the respondents. Subsequently, this interim order was vacated. After an unsuccessful appeal, the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
3. Mr. V. S. Desai addressed at some length for the appellant and Mr. Tarkunde for the respondents.
4. This Court is called upon to examine the proceeding at the stage when it is necessary to find out whether plaintiffs have a prima facie case to enable them to obtain an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession as also restraining the respondents from using the F. S. I. for the whole of the land? The whole plot is around 17,000 sq. metres. Plaintiffs claimed title to and possession of an area admeasuring 8006.04 sq. metres. The use of the F.S.I. is granted to the respondents on the footing that they are entitled to put up construction over the entire area admeasuring 17,000 sq. metres. It is also necessary to examine where the balance of convenience lies.
5. It is unfortunate that this is more or less a fight by proxy. Plaintiffs have executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Shri Ve1ji Ramlal Shah and Shri Gashi Ramlal Shah. Similarly respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a partnership with defendants Nos. 3 and 4 contributing the land involved in the dispute as their capital and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 bringing in cash contribution and this partnership is dissolved whereby respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken the cash and the land involved in the dispute has gone to defendants Nos. 3 and 4. We do not propose to express any opinion on the nature of this transaction. Fact remains that this is a fight by proxy.
6. When an interim injunction is sought, the Court may have to examine whether the party seeking the assistance of the Court was at any time in lawful possession of the property and if it is so established one would prima facie ask the other side contesting the suit to show how the plaintiffs were dispossessed? We pin-pointed this question and heard the submission. We refrain from discussing the evidence and recording our conclusions because evidence is still to be led and the contentions and disputes have to be examined in depth and any expression of opinion by this Court may prejudice one or the other party in having a fair
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
