Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Udai Raj Singh Chauhan, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa, challenging an order dated 18/12/2017 passed by the District Court, Margao. The District Court had upheld the Trial Court's order rejecting the petitioner's application for temporary injunction. The petitioner was the original plaintiff in a civil suit seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with his alleged exclusive right over a stilt parking space in the basement of a building at Alto Dabolim. The petitioner claimed that he had purchased a flat bearing No.143/B/G-2 pursuant to a Sale Deed dated 05/08/2003 and was allotted a stilt parking space. The respondents, who were the owners of another flat in the same building purchased via a Sale Deed dated 06/08/2003, were not allotted any parking space. The petitioner contended that the respondents were attempting to forcibly occupy his parking space. The respondents denied the petitioner's exclusive right, asserting that the parking space was a common area. The Trial Court rejected the injunction application, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case as the sale deed did not mention any parking space. The District Court affirmed this finding. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the petitioner's sale deed did not confer any right over the parking space, and the parking space was a common area. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere under Article 227. The decision was pronounced on 09/10/2018.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for injunction to protect his alleged exclusive right over a stilt parking space. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found that the petitioner failed to establish any exclusive right over the parking space as it was not mentioned in the sale deed and was a common area. Held that no prima facie case was made out (Paras 5-10). B) Property Law - Stilt Parking - Common Area - The dispute pertained to the right to use a stilt parking space in a residential building. The petitioner claimed exclusive right based on allotment, but the sale deed did not mention any parking space. The respondents, who purchased another flat, were not allotted any parking space. The court held that the parking space was a common area and the petitioner had no exclusive right (Paras 5-8). C) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the appellate order. The court reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to reappreciating evidence unless there is a grave error or perversity. Held that no interference was warranted as the findings were concurrent and not perverse (Paras 4, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his alleged exclusive right over a stilt parking space.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The order of the District Court dated 18/12/2017 upholding the Trial Court's rejection of injunction is confirmed.
Law Points
- Injunction
- Prima Facie Case
- Balance of Convenience
- Irreparable Loss
- Stilt Parking
- Common Area
- Sale Deed
- Article 227
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
