Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravikiran Vasant Gore, filed two writ petitions challenging the judgment and order dated 25 January 2021 passed by the District Judge-II, Panvel, Raigad, in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos. 260/2019 and 258/2019. By that order, the District Court allowed the appeals and set aside the temporary injunction dated 29 October 2018 granted by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, in Special Civil Suit No. 459 of 2016. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit, which he filed against his sister (defendant no. 1), his mother (defendant no. 2), purchasers of the suit property (defendants no. 3 and 4), and a developer (defendant no. 5). The suit sought a declaration of the plaintiff's share in the suit property and a declaration that the deed of revocation of will dated 27 October 2015 and the gift deed of the same date were void and not binding on him. The plaintiff's father, Vasant Vasudeo Gore, was in government service, and his mother, Smt. Pramila Vasant Gore, was a teacher. The plaintiff claimed that his father purchased the suit property out of his own funds in the mother's name. The mother executed a registered will on 11 June 2008 in respect of the suit property, bequeathing it to the plaintiff. However, on 27 October 2015, the mother executed a deed of revocation of the will and a gift deed in favor of the plaintiff's sister (defendant no. 1). The plaintiff alleged that the revocation and gift deed were void. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining defendants no. 3 to 5 from further developing the suit property and from alienating it. The District Court, in appeal, set aside the injunction. The High Court, in the present writ petitions, examined whether the District Court was justified in interfering with the trial court's discretionary order. The High Court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own discretion without finding any perversity or material irregularity in the trial court's order. The trial court had correctly found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff based on the will and the circumstances of its revocation. The balance of convenience was in favor of granting the injunction to protect the suit property from alienation pending final adjudication. The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petitions, set aside the District Court's order, and restored the temporary injunction granted by the trial court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Appellate Court's Interference - The District Court set aside the trial court's injunction restraining defendants from alienating and developing suit property. The High Court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own discretion without finding perversity or material irregularity. The trial court had correctly found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff based on the will and the circumstances of the revocation. The balance of convenience was in favor of granting injunction to protect the suit property from alienation pending final adjudication. (Paras 1-13) B) Succession - Will - Revocation - Gift Deed - Validity - The plaintiff challenged the revocation of will dated 27 October 2015 and the gift deed of the same date executed by his mother, alleging they were void. The court noted that the mother had executed a will in 2008 bequeathing the property to the plaintiff, and the subsequent revocation and gift deed were executed when the mother was allegedly not in good health. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trial regarding the validity of the revocation and gift deed. (Paras 3-10) C) Property Law - Benami Transaction - Purchase in Wife's Name - The plaintiff claimed that his father purchased the suit property in the mother's name with his own funds. The court considered this as a factor supporting the plaintiff's claim of interest in the property, though the main issue was the validity of the will and its revocation. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court was justified in setting aside the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court restraining the defendants from alienating and developing the suit property pending the suit for declaration of share and challenging the revocation of will and gift deed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the judgment and order dated 25 January 2021 passed by the District Judge-II, Panvel, in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.260/2019 and 258/2019, and restored the temporary injunction dated 29 October 2018 granted by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Panvel, in Special Civil Suit No.459 of 2016.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- appellate court's interference with discretionary order
- scope of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC
