Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Ramakant Ambalal Choksi – Appellant
VS
Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 252 of 2023
Decided On : 22-11-2024
Key Points: - The appellate court must not substitute its discretion for the trial court’s unless the trial court’s discretion was perverse, arbitrary, or failed to apply settled law; review should consider whether the trial court acted within principles governing interim injunctions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court reiterates the three core conditions for granting a temporary injunction: prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience, with the need for sound judicial discretion in pendency of the suit (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that appellate interference should be limited and not based on extraneous considerations; the High Court erred by materially substituting its view and considering pending litigations and alleged malafides instead of per se perversity in the trial court’s order (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The decision clarifies that lis pendens under Section 52 TP Act can affect transfers of the suit property during litigation, and interim relief does not automatically foreclose subsequent transfers when pending; transfers may be constrained or scrutinized at final adjudication (!) (!) (!) .
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Gujarat dated 08.12.2022 in Appeal from Order No. 86/2022 by which the High Court allowed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondents herein and thereby set aside the order of injunction which was passed by the trial court below Exhibit-5 in favour of the appellants herein.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also looked into the materials on record.
SUIT PROCEEDINGS
4. The appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs before the trial court, instituted the Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2019 for declaration, cancellation of registered sale deed bearing no. 2863 dated 23.03.2018 and permanent injunction against the respondents herein, that is, the original defendants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application below Exhibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the original suit.
6. Plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 respectively are real brothers and plaintiff nos. 4 to 6 respectively are their respective wives. Defendant no. 1 is the real brother of the plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 respectively and defendant no. 2 is his wife. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 respectively are the sons of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, and defendant no. 5 is the wife of the defendant no. 3.
7. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiffs that they purchased the suit property situated in Sub-Plot No. 1, Navrang Co-operative Housing Society, Survey No. 549/2, Alkapuri, Vadodara on 19.09.1991 by way of a registered sale deed bearing no. 13813 in the joint names of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 and defendant no. 1. By way of one another registered sale deed bearing no. 13805 executed on the same date, the first floor of the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff nos. 4 to 6 and defendant no. 2. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 became joint owners of the suit property and their names were accordingly mutated in the city survey record.
8. The plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2 decided to start a jewellery showroom on the suit property and for the purpose of development and construction, a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiffs along with the defendant no. 2 in favour of the defendant no. 1 before the Executive Magistrate on 06.04.1995. However, after remaining operational for few years, in November, 2013, the jewellery showroom constructed on the suit property stopped its operations.
9. The plaintiff no. 5 received a notice dated 02.01.2019 issued by the City Survey Officer under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code inviting objections if any against the recording of change of ownership in respect of the suit property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon receiving the said notice, they enquired and found out that the defendant no. 1, on the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, had executed a registered sale deed in favour of his son, defendant no. 3 in respect of the suit property.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the plaintiffs instituted the suit along with an injunction application below Exhibit-5 seeking the reliefs as stated above.
11. The plaintiffs, in their application below Exhibit-5 for interim injunction under Order 39 of the CPC, pointed out the following:
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such orders.
The appellate court must respect the trial court's discretion in granting injunctions unless shown to be arbitrary or perverse.
The court upheld the grant of a temporary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in property disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
Power of Attorney has certain limitations.
The court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
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
