Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Annappa Maruti Zalke, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 11th May 2002 and for an injunction restraining the defendant, Ramu Balappa Bogarnal, from obstructing his possession of the suit land. The plaintiff claimed that he was initially put in possession under an unregistered mortgage deed dated 27th June 2000, and his possession continued as a transferee under the agreement for sale. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from causing obstruction. On appeal, the District Judge set aside the injunction, holding that the possession under an unregistered agreement for sale was not lawful and could not be protected. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellate court erred in interfering with the trial court's discretionary order. The High Court clarified that an unregistered agreement for sale is not required to be registered and can be used as evidence of collateral transactions, such as possession. The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries, which dealt with documents conveying title, not agreements for sale. The court emphasized that even a trespasser in settled possession is entitled to protection, and the plaintiff's possession under the agreement was lawful. The High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial court's injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Appellate Interference - The appellate court should not interfere with the discretionary order of the trial court unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or the order is contrary to settled principles of law. The appellate court cannot substitute its own discretion merely because it would have taken a different view. (Paras 8-9)
B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 49 - Unregistered Agreement for Sale - An unregistered agreement for sale is not required to be compulsorily registered and can be received as evidence of a collateral transaction, such as the nature of possession. The ratio in Suraj Lamp & Industries (2009) 7 SCC 363 applies to documents that purport to convey title, not to agreements for sale where the transferee seeks specific performance. (Paras 3, 10-11)
C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Possession under Agreement for Sale - Possession of a plaintiff under an unregistered agreement for sale is lawful possession and is entitled to protection by way of temporary injunction, even if the agreement is not registered. The court must examine prima facie possession and protect it, as even a rank trespasser in settled possession is entitled to protection. (Paras 5, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order granting temporary injunction on the ground that possession under an unregistered agreement for sale is not lawful and does not merit protection.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the District Judge dated 24th June 2016, and restored the order of the trial court granting temporary injunction. The appellate court's order was quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Unregistered agreement for sale
- Lawful possession
- Section 49 Registration Act
- 1908
- Appellate interference with discretionary order
- Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (3) 137
Writ Petition No. 8341 of 2016
Mr. Kumar Babu Redekar for the Petitioner; Mr. Chetan Patil with Vishwesh Gadage for the Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale and for permanent injunction, with an application for temporary injunction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (plaintiff) sought temporary injunction restraining the respondent (defendant) from causing obstruction to his possession and cultivation of the suit land.
Filing Reason
The defendant refused to obtain permission from the competent authority to sell the land and execute a registered sale deed, and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadhinglaj) granted temporary injunction on 28th October 2015. The appellate court (District Judge, Gadhinglaj) set aside that order on 24th June 2016 in MCA No. 19 of 2016.
Issues
Whether the appellate court was justified in interfering with the trial court's discretionary order granting temporary injunction.
Whether possession under an unregistered agreement for sale is lawful and entitled to protection by way of temporary injunction.
Whether the ratio in Suraj Lamp & Industries applies to agreements for sale where specific performance is sought.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the appellate court misconstrued Section 49 of the Registration Act and wrongly applied Suraj Lamp, as an agreement for sale is not required to be registered. Even an unregistered mortgage deed can be used as evidence of collateral transaction. The trial court's order was reasoned and should not have been interfered with.
Respondent argued that the mortgage deed and agreement for sale were unregistered, and thus the plaintiff's possession was not lawful. The recitals in the agreement showed that the sons were in possession, not the plaintiff. The defendant disputed execution of the agreement as a consenting party.
Ratio Decidendi
An appellate court should not interfere with a discretionary order of the trial court unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or the order is contrary to settled principles of law. Possession under an unregistered agreement for sale is lawful and entitled to protection by way of temporary injunction, as the agreement is not required to be registered under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The ratio in Suraj Lamp & Industries applies to documents that convey title, not to agreements for sale where specific performance is sought.
Judgment Excerpts
An unregistered Agreement for Sale is not required to be compulsorily registered and can be received as evidence of a collateral transaction, such as the nature of possession.
The appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.
Even a rank trespasser, who is in settled possession, is entitled to protect his possession.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed RCS No. 96 of 2015 for specific performance and injunction. The trial court granted temporary injunction on 28th October 2015. The respondent appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal on 24th June 2016, setting aside the injunction. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Registration Act, 1908: Section 49
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 10
