Case Note & Summary
The appellant-plaintiff, M/s. Amoda Properties LLP, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 21st December 2016, whereby defendant no.1, Joy Mrinalkani Basu, agreed to sell 10 acres out of his 1/3rd undivided share in an agricultural land admeasuring about 100 acres. The plaintiff paid the entire consideration of Rs.1,74,50,000/- but defendant no.1 declined to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff also alleged that defendant no.1 along with co-owners (defendants no.2 and 3) were likely to sell the property to others under the brand name 'Saaras Smart City' through defendant no.4. The plaintiff sought a decree of specific performance and an interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property. The trial court refused to grant interim injunction, and the plaintiff appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for injunction. The court observed that the agreement was only with defendant no.1 for his undivided share, and the other co-owners were not parties to the agreement. Therefore, they had an independent right to deal with their shares. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss would be caused if injunction was not granted. The court also noted that the plaintiff had an alternative remedy of seeking damages.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Injunction against co-owners - An agreement for sale of an undivided share by one co-owner does not entitle the purchaser to an injunction against other co-owners who are not parties to the agreement, as they have an independent right to deal with their own shares. (Paras 1-11)
B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Prima facie case - In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an undivided share, the plaintiff must show a strong prima facie case that the agreement is valid and binding, and that the balance of convenience lies in granting injunction. (Paras 1-11)
C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Specific performance of contract - The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction as the agreement was only for 10 acres out of defendant no.1's undivided 1/3rd share, and the other co-owners were not bound by the agreement. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (including co-owners not party to the agreement) from selling or alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The order of the trial court refusing interim injunction is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Injunction against co-owners
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Agreement for sale of undivided share
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (02) 36
Appeal from Order No. 926 of 2019 along with Civil Application No. 1099 of 2019
Mr. Abhishek Pungliya for appellant; Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy i/by Kanga and Co. for respondent no.1; Ms. Ankita Singhania i/by Mr. Vevek Sharma for respondents no.2 to 4
M/s. Amoda Properties LLP
Mr. Joy Mrinalkani Basu and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against refusal of interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land.
Remedy Sought
Appellant-plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining respondents-defendants from selling or alienating the suit property pending disposal of the suit.
Filing Reason
Defendant no.1 declined to execute the sale deed despite receiving full consideration, and the plaintiff apprehended that the defendants were likely to sell the property to third parties.
Previous Decisions
The trial court refused to grant interim injunction; hence the appeal.
Issues
Whether the appellant-plaintiff has a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction against co-owners who are not parties to the agreement.
Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting injunction.
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he paid full consideration and defendant no.1 breached the agreement, and that the co-owners were acting in concert to defeat his rights.
Respondents argued that the agreement was only with defendant no.1 for his undivided share, and the other co-owners had independent rights to deal with their shares, and that the plaintiff had an alternative remedy of damages.
Ratio Decidendi
An agreement for sale of an undivided share by one co-owner does not entitle the purchaser to an injunction against other co-owners who are not parties to the agreement, as they have an independent right to deal with their own shares. The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for grant of interim injunction.
Judgment Excerpts
Defendants no.1, 2 and 3 are the co-owners of the agricultural land admeasuring about 100 acres...
Plaintiff...vide agreement dated 21st December, 2016...agreed to sell 10 acres of area, out of his 1/3rd share...
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction as the agreement was only with defendant no.1 for his undivided share, and the other co-owners were not bound by the agreement.
Procedural History
The appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit in June 2018 seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 21st December 2016. The trial court refused to grant interim injunction. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 28th February 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 38, Section 10
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
