Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohd. Salim Abdul Sattar, filed an appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing his notice of motion for interim reliefs. The appellant claimed to be a co-owner of a suit property admeasuring 219 sq. yards, along with respondent No.2, Mrs. Roashan Gulam Rassol Vora. The property was purchased by them via a Conveyance dated 16th March 2000. A General Power of Attorney dated 14th May 2001 was executed by both co-owners in favor of respondent No.3, Gulam Rassol Vora, granting him powers to manage the property, including executing documents. The appellant alleged that respondent No.2 fraudulently surrendered his share in the property through an unregistered release deed, and that respondent No.1, Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust, which purchased the property from respondent No.2, acquired no right to his 50% undivided share. The appellant sought an interim injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with his share. The learned Single Judge refused the interim relief, and the appellant appealed. The Division Bench, comprising Justices S.J. Vazifdar and Revati Mohite Dere, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish a strong prima facie case. The court noted that the power of attorney granted to respondent No.3 included powers to execute documents, and the alleged release deed, though unregistered, was not clearly invalid at the interim stage. The balance of convenience did not favor granting an injunction, and the appellant had not demonstrated irreparable loss. The court upheld the discretion exercised by the Single Judge.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court held that the appellant failed to establish a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief, as the alleged surrender of his share through an unregistered release deed was not clearly invalid and the power of attorney granted to respondent No.3 included powers to execute documents. (Paras 1-6) B) Property Law - Co-ownership - Release Deed - The court noted that the appellant's contention that the release deed was fraudulent was not supported by sufficient evidence at the interim stage, and the balance of convenience did not favor granting an injunction. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with his 50% share in the suit property.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge refusing interim reliefs is upheld.
Law Points
- Interim injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- power of attorney
- co-ownership
- release deed
- unregistered document
