Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession over land bearing Gat No.669. The dispute arose from a consolidation scheme where Gat No.669 was wrongly shown as constituted out of Survey No.122/2 instead of Survey No.122/1A and 122/1B. The plaintiffs had applied for correction of the scheme, which was pending before the Deputy Director Land Records. The TILR submitted a report stating that the plaintiffs were in possession of the western side of Gat No.669 to the extent of 1H and 12R. The trial court granted a temporary injunction on 8-3-2010, relying on the TILR report and the fact that the defendants' land (Survey No.122/2) had been acquired for resettlement of project affected persons in 1972. The defendants appealed, and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 24-8-2011, setting aside the injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs had purchased only 84R land by a sale deed dated 5-7-1993 and could not claim more. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's order without considering the TILR report and the acquisition of the defendants' land. The High Court restored the trial court's injunction order, finding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in their favour.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The trial court granted injunction based on TILR report showing plaintiffs' possession and acquisition of defendants' land; appellate court erred in reversing without considering these factors - Held that the appellate court's interference was not justified (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's order granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 24-8-2011 of the First Appellate Court, and restored the trial court's order dated 8-3-2010 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- consolidation scheme error
- possession report
- appellate court's interference
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 36
WRIT PETITION NO.8403 of 2011
Mr. K.B.Sonwalkar for the Petitioners, Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for the Respondent Nos.2 & 4 to 7
Shri Datu Vithoba Yadav (since deceased) through LRS Shri Haridas Dattu Yadav & Ors.
Shri Dnyaneshwar Sambha Yadav & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging the appellate court's order setting aside temporary injunction in a suit for injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought restoration of the trial court's order granting temporary injunction restraining respondents from interfering with their possession over Gat No.669.
Filing Reason
The First Appellate Court allowed the respondents' appeal and set aside the trial court's injunction order, which the petitioners challenged.
Previous Decisions
Trial court granted temporary injunction on 8-3-2010; First Appellate Court set it aside on 24-8-2011.
Issues
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order granting temporary injunction.
Whether the trial court's reliance on the TILR report and acquisition of defendants' land was proper.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the trial court correctly relied on the TILR report showing their possession and the acquisition of defendants' land.
Respondents contended that the plaintiffs had purchased only 84R land and could not claim more based on a consolidation scheme error.
Ratio Decidendi
The First Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's injunction order without considering the TILR report showing plaintiffs' possession and the fact that the defendants' land had been acquired. The trial court had properly exercised its discretion based on prima facie case and balance of convenience.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court, as can be seen from its order dated 8-3-2010 has relied upon the report submitted by the TILR as also took into consideration the fact that the land on the Eastern side was acquired by the authorities for the project affected persons.
The First Appellate Court has not considered the said report of the TILR and the fact that the land of the Respondents was acquired.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed suit for injunction in trial court. Trial court granted temporary injunction on 8-3-2010. Defendants appealed to District Court, which allowed appeal on 24-8-2011. Plaintiffs filed writ petition in High Court challenging the appellate order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
