Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. Heera Laxmi Contractors Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land and for permanent injunction against the respondents. The suit land was Khasra No.263/1, PH No.12, Khate no.64, corresponding to City Survey No.133/2 of mouza Godhani, Nagpur, to the extent of 1.68 hectares out of 2 hectares. The appellant claimed that on 1.7.2005, Shakuntalabai and her brother Dwarka (respondent no.1) agreed to sell 2 hectares of land for Rs.20,00,000. The appellant paid Rs.14,55,000 in installments and was put in possession. Shakuntalabai died on 9.7.2009, leaving behind her two sons (respondent nos.2 and 3) and a daughter (respondent no.4) as legal heirs. The appellant alleged that the respondents were trying to alienate the land. The trial court, by interim order dated 18.12.2014 in Special Civil Suit No.107 of 2014, refused to grant temporary injunction. The appellant challenged this order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. The High Court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case, as the agreement was supported by payment of substantial consideration and possession was delivered. The balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction was not granted. The court set aside the trial court's order and directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the suit land until disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeal against interim order - Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC - Maintainability - Appeal lies against order refusing or granting interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Held that the appeal is maintainable (Para 1).
B) Specific Performance - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Agreement to sell dated 1.7.2005 for sale of 2 hectares for Rs.20,00,000 - Plaintiff paid Rs.14,55,000 and was put in possession - Trial court erred in holding that plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case - Held that plaintiff has strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour (Paras 4-6).
C) Specific Performance - Interim Injunction - Irreparable Loss - Plaintiff in possession of suit land - If injunction not granted, plaintiff may be dispossessed and suit may become infructuous - Held that irreparable loss would be caused to plaintiff (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, despite the plaintiff having paid substantial consideration and being in possession.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No.107 of 2014 is set aside. The respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property until disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC
- Specific Performance of Contract
- Interim Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (06) 125
Mr. A.M. Quazi for the Appellant, Mr. S.J. Khandalkar for Respondent No.1, Mr. P.A. Abhyankar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
M/s. Heera Laxmi Contractors Pvt. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory Shri Ved Prakash s/o. Chandiramji Wadhwani
1. Dwarka @ Manu s/o. Trilochand Hiranwar, 2. Jagadish s/o. Jhanaklal Choudhari, 3. Neeraj s/o. Jhanaklal Choudhari, 4. Smt. Renuka w/o. Vinod Siriya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against interim order refusing temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of trial court's order refusing interim injunction and grant of injunction restraining respondents from alienating or interfering with possession of suit land.
Filing Reason
Trial court refused to grant temporary injunction despite appellant having paid substantial consideration and being in possession under an agreement to sell.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (4th Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Nagpur) in Special Civil Suit No.107 of 2014 refused interim injunction on 18.12.2014.
Issues
Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction?
Whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant?
Whether irreparable loss would be caused to the appellant if injunction is not granted?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that there was a valid agreement to sell dated 1.7.2005, substantial consideration of Rs.14,55,000 was paid, and possession was delivered to the appellant.
Respondents opposed the injunction, but the judgment does not detail their specific arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
In a suit for specific performance, where the plaintiff has paid substantial consideration and is in possession under an agreement to sell, a prima facie case is made out for grant of interim injunction to protect possession and prevent alienation. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would be caused if injunction is refused.
Judgment Excerpts
This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure questions the interim order passed in pending Special Civil Suit No.107 of 2014...
It was the case of the plaintiff/appellant that there was an agreement dt.1.7.2005 whereby Shakuntalabai and her brother Dwarka had agreed to sell two hectares of land...
In the facts and circumstances, the appellant/plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and irreparable loss would be caused to him if the injunction is not granted.
Procedural History
The appellant filed Special Civil Suit No.107 of 2014 for specific performance and permanent injunction. The trial court refused interim injunction on 18.12.2014. The appellant filed the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC on 30.6.2015, which was allowed.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 43 Rule 1(r), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
