Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against an order granting temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance. The appellants, defendants No. 3 and 4, were co-owners of the suit land but were not parties to the agreement of sale executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents. The trial court granted injunction against the appellants on two grounds: (1) they refused to perform the agreement, and (2) they sold part of the property, indicating an intention to meddle. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the first ground did not establish a prima facie case against the appellants as they were not bound by the agreement. The second ground was also insufficient as the sale was of a different portion. The court held that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not favour the respondents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the temporary injunction against the appellants was vacated. The court directed the trial court to expedite the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Specific Performance - Non-Signatory Co-Owner - The trial court granted temporary injunction against appellants (defendants No. 3 and 4) who were not signatories to the agreement of sale, on grounds that they refused to perform the agreement and sold part of the property. The High Court held that refusal to perform by a non-signatory co-owner does not create a prima facie case for injunction against them, as the agreement is not binding on them. The court also noted that the sale of part of the property by appellants did not establish an intention to meddle with the suit property, as the sale was of a different portion. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss were not in favour of the respondents. (Paras 3-7)
B) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 38 - Permanent Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court observed that for a temporary injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. In this case, the respondents failed to show a prima facie case against the appellants, who were not parties to the agreement. The court set aside the injunction order. (Paras 4-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting temporary injunction against the appellants (defendants No. 3 and 4) who were not parties to the agreement of sale, and whether the respondents had a prima facie case for such injunction.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the trial court is set aside. The temporary injunction granted against the appellants is vacated. The trial court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose it of as early as possible.
Law Points
- Prima facie case
- Temporary injunction
- Specific performance
- Non-signatory co-owner
- Agreement of sale
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (10) 115
Appeal Against Order No. 45 of 2014
Shri M. G. Sarda for the appellants, Shri R. W. Deshmukh for the respondents
Smt. Bhawana w/o late Arbind Bapat and Uday s/o late Arvind Bapat
Navneet s/o Bhojraj Lakhotia and Ajit Vijaykumar Deshmukh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order granting temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought setting aside of the temporary injunction order granted against them by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The trial court granted temporary injunction against the appellants (defendants No. 3 and 4) on grounds that they refused to perform the agreement of sale and sold part of the property, which the appellants contended was erroneous as they were not parties to the agreement.
Previous Decisions
The trial court granted temporary injunction against the appellants. The present appeal challenges that order.
Issues
Whether the trial court was correct in granting temporary injunction against the appellants who were not signatories to the agreement of sale.
Whether the respondents had a prima facie case for injunction against the appellants.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that in view of the law laid down in Pemmada Prabhakar and Van Vibhag Karamchari cases, the respondents had no prima facie case against them as they were not parties to the agreement.
Respondents argued that the suit for specific performance would be decided on merits and that the agreement created rights in their favour, making an arguable case.
Ratio Decidendi
A temporary injunction cannot be granted against a person who is not a party to the agreement of sale, as refusal to perform by such a person does not create a prima facie case. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss must also favour the plaintiff, which was not established in this case.
Judgment Excerpts
It is seen from the impugned order that an application for temporary injunction has been granted for two reasons. The first reason is that defendants No. 3 and 4, who are appellants herein, are refusing to perform specifically the agreement of sale entered into by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents.
So far as the first reason is concerned, it relates to existence of prima facie case in favour of the respondents. However, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pemmada Prabhakar & others Vs. Youngmen's Vysya Association & others reported in 2014 (5) ALL MR 921 (S.C.) and also in the case of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) Vs. Ramesh Chander & others reported in AIR 2011 SC 41, the respondents would have no prima facie case in their favour.
In the instant matter, the suit land is jointly owned by the appellants and defendants No. 1 and 2. The agreement of sale is executed only by defendants No. 1 and 2. The appellants are not parties to the agreement. Therefore, the refusal by the appellants to perform the agreement cannot be a ground to hold that the respondents have a prima facie case against the appellants.
The second reason that the appellants have sold part of the property also does not establish a prima facie case, as the sale was of a different portion and not the suit property. The balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not in favour of the respondents.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and specific performance of contract against the appellants and others. The trial court granted temporary injunction against the appellants. The appellants filed the present appeal against that order. The High Court admitted the appeal and heard it finally by consent of parties.
Acts & Sections
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 38
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
