Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original defendants, challenged an order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao, which allowed the respondents' application for injunction and restrained the appellants from interfering with the suit property and carrying out further construction. The respondents had entered into an Agreement dated 22.01.2007 with the members of Vidya Vikas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. to convey 30 residential flats to the Society. A Power of Attorney dated 22.01.2007 was also executed in favor of respondent No.2. The respondents later entered into an agreement with M/s. Vrudhi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for construction, which was mutually terminated. Subsequently, the appellants allegedly entered the suit property and started construction, leading to the suit. The trial court granted the injunction, finding that the respondents had a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The High Court upheld the order, noting that the respondents had a better claim to the property based on the Agreement and Power of Attorney, and that the trial court's discretion was not perverse. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court must assess whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss before granting an injunction - The trial court's order granting injunction was upheld as the respondents had a strong prima facie case based on the Agreement for Sale and Power of Attorney, and the balance of convenience favored them (Paras 1-10).
B) Property Law - Agreement for Sale - Title - An Agreement for Sale does not confer title but creates a right in personam - However, coupled with a Power of Attorney and possession, it may support a claim for injunction - The court held that the respondents had a better claim to the property than the appellants (Paras 2-8).
C) Civil Procedure - Appeal from Order - Scope - In an appeal from an order granting injunction, the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's exercise of discretion is perverse or arbitrary - The High Court found no such perversity in the impugned order (Paras 1, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the suit property and carrying out further construction, based on the respondents' claim of title under an Agreement for Sale and Power of Attorney.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order granting injunction.
Law Points
- Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
- Agreement for Sale
- Power of Attorney
- Title Dispute
Case Details
Appeal from Order No.6 of 2017
Shri Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Shri G. Panandikar for Appellants; Shri Parag Rao for Respondents
M/s. Shirka Constructions and Shri Shirish Q. Kamat
M/s. Appollo Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Kiran V. Naik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal from Order challenging an interim injunction granted by the trial court in a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of title.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the trial court's order granting injunction restraining them from interfering with the suit property and carrying out construction.
Filing Reason
The appellants were aggrieved by the trial court's order dated 09.01.2017 allowing the respondents' application for injunction.
Previous Decisions
The Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao allowed the respondents' application for injunction on 09.01.2017.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the suit property and carrying out further construction.
Whether the respondents had a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in their favor.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the respondents had no title to the property and that the Agreement for Sale did not confer any right.
The respondents contended that they had a prima facie case based on the Agreement for Sale and Power of Attorney, and that the balance of convenience was in their favor.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the trial court's discretion in granting an interim injunction should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or arbitrary. The respondents had a prima facie case based on the Agreement for Sale and Power of Attorney, and the balance of convenience favored them as they were in possession and had a better claim to the property.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants who are the original defendants are challenging the impugned order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao pursuant to which he allowed the respondents application for injunction and restrained the present appellants through their servants, agents etc. from interfering in the suit property and carrying out further construction therein.
The respondents had entered into an Agreement dated 22.01.2007 with the members of the Society known as Vidya Vikas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. pursuant to which the respondents were to convey to the Society 30 residential flats in the building/s, which were to be erected by them.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of title in the court of the Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao, along with an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court allowed the injunction application on 09.01.2017. The appellants filed an appeal against that order before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was dismissed on 11.04.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
