Case Note & Summary
The case arises from an appeal filed by the defendants (Suruna Bothra Associates & Others) against an order dated 4th December 2020 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, in Special Civil Suit No. 954/2020. The plaintiffs (Rakesh Motilal Sharma & Others) had filed the suit seeking a declaration that they had perfected their title over the suit property (land bearing survey no. 579/2, admeasuring 799.60 sq. mtrs.) by way of adverse possession, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering the property or interfering with their possession. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction, which was granted by the Trial Court, restraining the defendants from entering the suit property or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiffs asserted that their grandfather, Girdharilal Sharma, was a partner in M/s Sharma Builders, which entered into a development agreement on 1st September 1988 with the owners of survey no. 579/1. They claimed that at the same time, the partners also took possession of the adjoining property (survey no. 579/2) and in 1990 constructed a compound wall encompassing both properties. The plaintiffs contended that they had been in continuous, open, and hostile possession for over 12 years, thereby perfecting their title by adverse possession. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had no right over the suit property and that the injunction was wrongly granted. The High Court examined the pleadings and documents, including photographs and affidavits, and found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of possession. The court noted that the issue of adverse possession requires trial and cannot be decided at the interim stage. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs as they were in possession and would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted. The court also observed that the defendants had not produced any material to show that they were in possession. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's order of injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The court examined whether the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction in a suit for declaration of title by adverse possession. Held that the plaintiffs' long-standing possession and construction of compound wall in 1990 constituted a prima facie case. (Paras 4-10) B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Declaration of Title - The plaintiffs sought declaration of title by adverse possession over land admeasuring 799.60 sq. mtrs. The court noted that the plaintiffs' possession since 1988-1990 was open, continuous, and hostile to the true owner. Held that the issue of adverse possession requires trial and cannot be decided at the interim stage. (Paras 4-6, 12) C) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - The court considered the balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs as they were in possession and would suffer irreparable loss if injunction was not granted. (Paras 11-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering the suit property and interfering with plaintiffs' possession pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's order dated 4th December 2020 granting temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering the suit property and interfering with the plaintiffs' possession till disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Adverse possession
- Temporary injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Order 43 Rule 1 CPC
