Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between two brothers, Udayraj Babaso Patil (petitioner/defendant) and Pramod Babaso Patil (respondent/plaintiff), over a suit property admeasuring 0.25.38 R of Gat No.2273 situated at Abdullat, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The suit property was one of many properties belonging to their late father, Babaso Annaso Patil. After their father's demise, the plaintiff, defendant, and another brother Sanjay (since deceased) filed Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2014 for partition and declaration, which was compromised. Under the compromise decree, the suit property was partitioned into three shares, with the defendant receiving the middle portion. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 2021 seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from constructing on the suit property, claiming exclusive possession. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restraining the defendant from construction. The defendant appealed, and the Appellate Court (District Judge-1, Jaysingpur) set aside the injunction by judgment dated 26/05/2022 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.19 of 2021. The defendant then filed the present writ petition challenging the Appellate Court's order and seeking restoration of the Trial Court's injunction. The High Court examined the compromise decree, which clearly partitioned the suit property and gave the defendant a specific share. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction, as the compromise decree indicated that the defendant was entitled to the middle portion. The balance of convenience also favored the defendant, who sought to construct on his own share. The court held that the Appellate Court correctly reappreciated the evidence and set aside the erroneous injunction. The writ petition was dismissed, and the defendant was permitted to carry out construction on his partitioned share, subject to the outcome of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction as the compromise decree in the partition suit gave the defendant a share in the suit property and the plaintiff's possession was not exclusive. The balance of convenience favored the defendant who sought to construct on his partitioned share. (Paras 1-24) B) Property Law - Partition - Compromise Decree - Possession - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 - The court noted that the compromise decree in Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2014 partitioned the suit property among the brothers, and the defendant was entitled to a specific portion. The plaintiff's claim of exclusive possession was inconsistent with the decree. (Paras 2-10) C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Power - Interference with Discretionary Order - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 - The Appellate Court's order setting aside the temporary injunction was upheld as the Trial Court's order was based on erroneous findings and the Appellate Court correctly reappreciated the evidence. (Paras 15-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's order granting temporary injunction restraining the defendant from constructing on the suit property was correct, and whether the Appellate Court's reversal of that order was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Appellate Court's order setting aside the temporary injunction. The defendant was permitted to carry out construction on his partitioned share, subject to the outcome of the suit.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- temporary injunction
- partition
- compromise decree
- possession
- construction
