Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Buildtech Engineers, filed an appeal against the order of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, which rejected its Notice of Motion seeking a temporary injunction. The appellant, as original plaintiff, had filed a suit seeking declaration that two agreements dated 1st October 2003 and 25th June 2004 were valid and for injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing it from the suit property, an area of 14918.50 sq. ft. with FSI of 17080 sq. ft. at Chembur, Mumbai. The plaintiff claimed to be a developer who had entered into agreements with the defendants for construction of a building. The trial court refused the injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience was not in its favor. The High Court, in appeal, upheld the trial court's order, holding that the plaintiff did not prove possession or a clear legal right to the property. The court noted that the agreements were not registered and the plaintiff's possession was disputed. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order granted earlier was vacated.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff sought injunction to protect possession based on agreements to develop property - Court held that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case as agreements were not registered and possession was not proved - Held that injunction cannot be granted without clear title and possession (Paras 1-10). B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 37 - Temporary Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court found that balance of convenience was not in favor of plaintiff as defendants were in possession and plaintiff's claim was disputed - Held that no irreparable loss would be caused to plaintiff if injunction refused (Paras 11-15). C) Property Law - Possessory Title - Agreement to Sell - The plaintiff claimed rights as developer under unregistered agreements - Court held that such agreements do not confer possessory title without registration and delivery of possession - Held that plaintiff cannot claim injunction based on mere agreement (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit property without following due process of law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai on 17th September 2011 in Notice of Motion No. 1328/2007 is confirmed. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Section 37
- Section 38
- Possessory title
- Agreement to sell
- Developer's rights
