Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2014 filed by the respondent (plaintiff) against the petitioners (defendants) for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession over the suit property. The trial Court rejected the application at Exh. 10 on 12.06.2015, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession. The plaintiff appealed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2015, and the lower appellate Court set aside the trial Court's order on 15.07.2015, granting the injunction. The defendants challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court examined whether the lower appellate Court's finding of prima facie possession was sustainable. The appellate Court had relied on three extension agreements dated 31.03.2011, 28.02.2012, and 28.02.2013, which contained a clause allowing the plaintiff to take electric and water meters in his name, and on Municipal Assessment records for 2012-13 to 2015-16 showing the plaintiff as occupant and proprietor of 'Gopal Tea House'. The High Court held that the finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court was based on evidence and was a possible view, thus no interference was warranted. The argument of the defendants' counsel that the appellate Court could not rely on the extension agreements due to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908 was not addressed as the Court found the view to be possible. The petition was dismissed, and the injunction granted by the lower appellate Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Possession - Specific Performance Suit - The lower appellate Court, while reversing the trial Court's order rejecting injunction, relied on extension agreements and municipal assessment records to hold that the plaintiff had prima facie possession. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the appellate court's view was a possible view based on evidence. (Paras 2-4) B) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1A) - Applicability to Extension Agreements - The argument that the lower appellate Court could not rely on extension agreements due to Section 17(1A) was not considered as the Court found the appellate court's view to be a possible view. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the lower appellate Court granting temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract, based on the finding of prima facie possession.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the lower appellate Court dated 15.07.2015 granting temporary injunction is upheld. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interference with appellate court's discretionary order
- Prima facie possession
- Temporary injunction
- Specific performance of contract
- Section 17(1A) of Registration Act
- 1908
