Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vishnu Anant Dessai and his wife, filed a suit in 2015 seeking declaration that a sale deed executed in 2014 by the vendor (respondent no.2, since deceased) in favor of respondent no.1 was illegal and void, and for permanent injunction. The petitioners claimed that they had purchased the entire property from the vendor in 1975, and the subsequent sale of a part was without title. The trial court granted an interim injunction in favor of the petitioners, but the appellate court reversed that order. The High Court, in this writ petition, examined whether the appellate court's interference was justified. It held that the appellate court had re-appreciated evidence without finding any perversity in the trial court's order, which is impermissible. The High Court restored the trial court's interim injunction, observing that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in their favor. The court also noted that the suit was pending and the interim protection was necessary to prevent alienation of the property.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The first purchaser who bought property in 1975 claimed that the subsequent sale of part of the same property in 2014 was illegal. The trial court granted interim injunction, but the appellate court reversed it. The High Court held that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence without finding perversity, and restored the trial court's order. (Paras 1-10)
B) Property Law - Sale Deed - Vendor's Title - The first purchaser's claim was that he had purchased whatever the vendor owned, and the subsequent sale of an extent was void. The court noted that the first purchaser had a prima facie case and balance of convenience favored him. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's order granting interim injunction in favor of the first purchaser.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's interim injunction.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- appellate interference
- sale deed validity
- property dispute
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (08) 40
WRIT PETITION NO.868 OF 2016
Shri A.D. Bhobe for Petitioners; Shri J.E. Coeho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri Sagar Rivankar for Respondent No.1; Shri S. Karpe for Respondent No.2
Mr. Vishnu Anant Dessai and Mrs. Lalita Vishnu Dessai
Govind Vithal Sawant and others (including legal representatives of deceased Gopinath Vaman Prabhu Sawkar)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding property rights.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought declaration that the 2014 sale deed was illegal and void, and permanent injunction restraining respondents from alienating the property.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed they purchased the entire property in 1975, and the vendor subsequently sold a part of it to respondent no.1 in 2014, which they alleged was without title.
Previous Decisions
Trial court granted interim injunction; appellate court reversed it.
Issues
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's order granting interim injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence without finding perversity.
Respondents contended that the trial court's order was erroneous and the appellate court correctly set it aside.
Ratio Decidendi
An appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary order granting interim injunction unless the trial court's exercise of discretion is perverse or based on wrong principles. Here, the appellate court re-appreciated evidence without finding perversity, which is impermissible.
Judgment Excerpts
One person purchases property in 1975. He claims he has purchased whatever his vendor owned. Later, after many years, in 2014, the vendor sells an extent, supposed to be a part of his total property, to another person.
Does the first purchaser deserve an interim protection? The trial Court says ‘yes’; the appellate Court says ‘no’. What should this Court say?
Procedural History
The petitioners filed RCS No. 18/2015/C before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, C-Court, Ponda, seeking declaration and injunction. The trial court granted interim injunction. The respondents appealed, and the appellate court reversed the order. The petitioners then filed this writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
