Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiffs, Man Chandak Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement entered into with late Shri Mangilal Gulabchand Narsingji (father of the Defendant) and his two brothers, Madanlal and Ranjeetmal, in respect of an undivided 1/3rd share out of 5 Annas share in immovable property. The two brothers had already performed their part and conveyed their shares to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant, Dilip Mangilal Jain, inherited his father's share but refused to perform the agreement. The Plaintiffs took out a Notice of Motion seeking interim relief to carry out development work on the property and to restrain the Defendant from creating third party rights or interfering with development. The Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience was in their favour, and they would suffer irreparable loss if interim relief was not granted. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to carry out development work on the entire property except an area of 581.38 square metres earmarked for the Defendant, and restrained the Defendant from creating third party rights or interfering with development. The Court directed the Plaintiffs to furnish an undertaking to pay damages if the suit was dismissed, and to file an affidavit of assets.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Oral Agreement - Prima Facie Case - The Plaintiffs sought specific performance of an oral agreement with the Defendant's father and his brothers for sale of an undivided share in immovable property. The Court held that the Plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties, including the brothers having already performed their part and the Defendant having accepted benefits under the agreement. (Paras 1-10) B) Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - Development Work - The Court found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Plaintiffs, as they had already commenced development and invested substantial sums. Refusing interim relief would cause irreparable loss to the Plaintiffs, whereas the Defendant could be compensated by way of damages if the suit was ultimately dismissed. (Paras 11-15) C) Interim Injunction - Irreparable Loss - The Court held that the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss if the Defendant was allowed to create third party rights or interfere with development, as the property was a single unit and development was ongoing. The Defendant's interest could be protected by earmarking an area equivalent to his share. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to interim relief permitting them to carry out development work on the suit property and restraining the Defendant from creating third party rights or interfering with development, pending disposal of the suit for specific performance of an oral agreement.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the Notice of Motion and permitted the Plaintiffs to carry out development work on the immovable properties I and II, excluding an area of 581.38 square metres as earmarked on the plan. The Court also restrained the Defendant from creating any third party rights in respect of his undivided share and from interfering with the development. The Plaintiffs were directed to furnish an undertaking to pay damages if the suit was dismissed and to file an affidavit of assets.
Law Points
- Specific Performance of Oral Agreement
- Interim Injunction
- Balance of Convenience
- Prima Facie Case
- Irreparable Loss
- Development Rights
- Undivided Share
- Co-owner's Rights
