Gujarat High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Permanent Injunction in Agreement to Sell Dispute — Failure to Pay Consideration Justifies Injunction to Protect Possession. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the appellants-defendants failed to pay consideration under the agreement to sell dated 23.06.2001, warranting a permanent injunction to protect the respondents-plaintiffs' possession of the suit land.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-19 20:07:33

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute over suit property bearing Block No. 206 and 207 of village Gunsada, Taluka Songadh. The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No. B-47 of 2001 seeking a permanent injunction against the appellants (original defendants) from interfering with their possession. The respondents claimed that they had entered into an agreement to sell dated 23.06.2001 with the appellants, whereby the appellants agreed to purchase the suit land. The agreement stipulated payment of consideration in installments, with interest on default. The appellants failed to make payments as agreed, leading the respondents to file the suit. The trial court, by judgment dated 28.02.2006, granted the permanent injunction, restraining the appellants from disturbing the respondents' possession. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the agreement to sell was executed, and the appellants had not paid the full consideration. The respondents remained in possession, and the injunction was necessary to protect their possession until the contract was performed or rescinded. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's order.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Agreement to Sell - Permanent Injunction - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 38 - The plaintiffs-respondents sought permanent injunction against the appellants-defendants for interfering with possession of suit land based on an agreement to sell dated 23.06.2001. The trial court granted injunction as the appellants failed to pay consideration as per the agreement. The High Court upheld the injunction, holding that the agreement to sell created a right in favour of the plaintiffs to protect possession until the contract is performed or rescinded. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Appeal against Injunction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - The appellants challenged the permanent injunction granted by the trial court. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellants had not paid the balance consideration and the respondents remained in possession. (Paras 5-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court was justified in granting permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents' possession of the suit property based on an agreement to sell.

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 granting permanent injunction.

Law Points

Specific performance
Agreement to sell
Permanent injunction
Breach of contract
Possession protection

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:8115-DB

R/First Appeal No. 635 of 2008

2026-01-21

Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje, Honourable Mr. Justice J. L. Odedra

2026:GUJHC:8115-DB

Mr. Dharm K Raval with Mr. Dev Patel for the appellants; Mr. Dilip L Kanojiya for defendants no. 2,4; Mr. Aayush S Bhandari and Vidit S Sharma for defendant no. 3

Mangilal Dalaji Purohit & Anr.

Natwarlal Mohanlal Shah (Since Deceased Represented Thru Legal Heirs R-2 to R-4 & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for permanent injunction based on an agreement to sell.

Remedy Sought

Permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents' possession of suit land.

Filing Reason

Appellants failed to pay consideration as per agreement to sell dated 23.06.2001.

Previous Decisions

Trial court granted permanent injunction on 28.02.2006 in Special Civil Suit No. B-47 of 2001.

Issues

Whether the trial court was justified in granting permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents' possession of the suit property based on an agreement to sell.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the trial court erred in granting injunction without considering that the agreement to sell was not specifically enforceable. Respondents argued that the appellants failed to pay consideration and the injunction was necessary to protect their possession.

Ratio Decidendi

An agreement to sell creates a right in the vendor to protect possession until the contract is performed or rescinded; failure to pay consideration justifies a permanent injunction to prevent interference with possession.

Judgment Excerpts

This Appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli in Special Civil Suit No.B-47 of 2001. Special Civil Suit No.B-47 of 2001 is filed by plaintiffs (respondents herein) for permanent injunction in connection with the suit property bearing Block No.206, 207 of village Gunsada, Taluka: Songadh.

Procedural History

The respondents filed Special Civil Suit No. B-47 of 2001 for permanent injunction. The trial court granted the injunction on 28.02.2006. The appellants filed First Appeal No. 635 of 2008 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 21.01.2026.