Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vijay A. Palekar, filed an appeal against an order passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I, which directed the appellant and respondent no.6 to maintain status quo while disposing of their injunction applications. The appellant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser of a suit plot in an auction conducted by respondent no.2 (Economic Development Corporation of Goa). The plot was allotted to him on 28.12.2009, he paid the purchase price in January 2010, and the sale deed was executed in his favour on 19.12.2013. He asserted that he had been in possession since December 2009. The respondent no.6 filed a suit alleging interference by the appellant, but the plaint did not refer to any acts of interference prior to January 2014. The appellant argued that the status quo order was unjustified as he had a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in his favour. The court, after hearing the advocates, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to decide the injunction applications afresh on merits, considering the appellant's claim as a bonafide purchaser.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Bonafide Purchaser - Injunction - The appellant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser of the suit plot in an auction conducted by respondent no.2, with sale deed executed on 19.12.2013. The respondent no.6 filed a suit alleging interference only after January 2014. The court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was in his favour, and the status quo order was not justified. (Paras 3-5) B) Civil Procedure - Injunction - Status Quo - The learned Adhoc District Judge-I directed the appellant and respondent no.6 to maintain status quo while disposing of their injunction applications. The appellate court found that the order was passed without proper consideration of the appellant's possession and the lack of cross-objections by respondent no.6. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Adhoc District Judge erred in directing status quo to be maintained by the appellant and respondent no.6 while disposing of their injunction applications, without considering the appellant's claim as a bonafide purchaser.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-I is set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the injunction applications afresh on merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment.
Law Points
- Bonafide purchaser for value without notice
- Injunction
- Status quo
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
