Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Manoj Ratilalbhai Chouhan and his wife Rajashri, filed a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of Shop No.169/1, admeasuring 220 sq.ft., in Tumsar, Bhandara. They also sought a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing their possession and from executing the decree in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996. The respondents, including Chandrakishore Chaurasia and others, were the original owners of the property. One Smt. Nandrani Devi, along with her sons and daughter, were the owners. Respondent No.1 Chandrakishore and his daughter Kirti filed Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for restoration of possession of the suit property, impleading the other co-owners as defendants. During the pendency of that suit, respondent No.3 Bhushankumar sold the suit property to the petitioners by a registered sale deed dated 29-5-1998. Consequently, the petitioners were added as party-defendants in the earlier suit. The petitioners then filed the present suit and applied for temporary injunction. The trial court rejected their application for temporary injunction, and the appellate court confirmed that order. The petitioners challenged these orders by way of the present writ petition. The High Court held that the sale during the pendency of the suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioners cannot claim any right independent of the outcome of the earlier suit. The concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case were not perverse or arbitrary. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Lis Pendens - Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sale During Pendency of Suit - The petitioners purchased the suit property by registered sale deed dated 29-5-1998 during the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 1996 filed by the respondents for restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court held that the sale is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and the petitioners cannot claim any right independent of the outcome of the earlier suit. (Paras 5-6) B) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, as their title was disputed and the earlier suit was pending. The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings. (Paras 7-8) C) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Suit for Possession - Summary Remedy - A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a summary proceeding for restoration of possession based on prior possession, and the purchaser during pendency of such suit cannot claim better rights than the vendor. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners/plaintiffs, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, are entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession and from executing the decree in the earlier suit.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of the trial court and appellate court rejecting the temporary injunction are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Doctrine of lis pendens
- Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- Section 6 of Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- Temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
