Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging the High Court's interim order vacating a temporary injunction that had restrained landowners from interfering with the developer's possession of agricultural land. The dispute arose from an Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 for 54 acres 13 guntas of land in Telangana. The developer claimed that physical possession was handed over under Clause 7 of the agreement, while the landowners contended that only symbolic possession was given and they remained in actual possession, cultivating vegetables and maintaining structures. The developer had paid part consideration, but the exact amount was disputed: the developer claimed Rs. 17.25 crores, while the landowners alleged only Rs. 14.25 crores was paid. The developer filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for the remaining 17 acres 31.5 guntas (suit property) and sought temporary injunctions to protect possession and restrain alienation. The trial court granted an injunction against interference with possession (excluding 12,000 sq. ft.) and an injunction against alienation subject to deposit of balance consideration. On appeal, a single judge of the High Court extended the injunction to the entire property and removed the deposit condition. However, a division bench of the High Court, in a cross-appeal by the landowners, vacated the injunction against interference with possession, holding that the developer failed to make out a prima facie case of physical possession. The Supreme Court upheld this order, noting that the issues of possession and payment of consideration were seriously disputed and could only be resolved at trial. The Court observed that the developer's interest was sufficiently protected by the existing injunction against alienation. The appeals were dismissed, and the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Prima Facie Case - Disputed questions of possession and payment of consideration cannot be resolved at the interim stage - The court must assess whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss - Held that where there are seriously disputed questions of fact, the trial court's findings on prima facie case and balance of convenience are not to be lightly interfered with, but the High Court's order vacating injunction was upheld as the developer failed to establish physical possession (Paras 16-20). B) Specific Performance - Agreement of Sale - Possession - Clause 7 of Agreement - Symbolic vs. Physical Possession - The agreement stated physical possession was handed over, but landowners claimed only symbolic possession and continued cultivation - Held that such a dispute requires trial and cannot be decided on affidavits (Paras 16-17). C) Specific Performance - Payment of Consideration - Dispute over amount paid - Developer claimed Rs. 17.25 crores paid, landowners claimed only Rs. 14.25 crores - Held that this disputed fact must be determined at trial, not at interim stage (Para 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in vacating the temporary injunction restraining the landowners from interfering with the developer's possession of the suit property, given the disputed questions of possession and payment of consideration.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court's order dated 14.08.2019 vacating the temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellants' possession of the suit property. The Court held that the disputed questions of possession and payment of consideration require trial and cannot be resolved at the interim stage. The existing injunction against alienation of the suit property was maintained.
Law Points
- Temporary Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
- Specific Performance
- Possession
- Disputed Questions of Fact
