Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 663
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. ________ / 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 2657/2025)
Tushar Himatlal Jani … Appellant
versus
Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. … Respondents
JUDGMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2024
passed by the High Court of Bombay ( High Court ) restraining
the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No. 1 or creating any
third-party interest in the disputed premises.
3. The facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Appellant’s
father was the owner of a plot admeasuring 22,000 square feet bearing
C.T.S. Nos.443(part), 451(part), 452A(part) at Vittalwadi, Ghatala
Village, Chembur, Mumbai. Out of the said area, the Appellant’s father
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.05.13
15:48:08 IST
Reason:
leased out 11,250 square feet i.e. the subject land, to a partnership
firm, namely M/s Silver Chem (India)/Respondent No.2, which was
Page 1 of 10
owned by the Vijan family members in 1972. It seems that upon the
death of his father, the entire property devolved upon the Appellant.
The Appellant terminated the above-mentioned lease agreement
vide notice dated 11.02.2008 and, in furtherance thereof, filed Eviction
Suit No. 119/148 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay
( Small Causes Court ).
4. Notably, Respondent No.1, who claims to be the legal heir of one
of the partners of Respondent No. 2, allegedly runs a business from the
suit structure in the name and style of M/s Asset Motors. He, thus, filed
an Impleadment Application in the Eviction Suit, contending that he is
a necessary and proper party whose rights would be directly affected by
the outcome of the proceedings. Respondent No.1 postulated his
undivided share in the business of Respondent No. 2 by virtue of a
Memorandum of Understanding executed amongst the Vijan family
members and further relied on his institution of a separate suit (bearing
th
No.441/2014) before the High Court seeking partition of his 1/6
undivided share in all the properties owned and held by the Vijan
family. The Small Causes Court allowed the impleadment application
vide order dated 06.10.2016. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, preferred a revision petition before the Appellate Small
Causes Court, which was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2019, setting
aside the order of impleadment.
Page 2 of 10
5. Members of the Vijan family, i.e. the partners of Respondent
No. 2 and Respondent No. 1, purportedly entered into a Family
Settlement Agreement on 09.06.2021 to resolve their inter se
differences, which referred to Respondent No. 1’s entitlement to 550
square feet area within the subject land. This Family Settlement was
the outcome of mediation efforts facilitated by a learned Mediator
appointed by this Court in several petitions between members of the
Vijan family. According to Respondent No.1, the Agreement ostensibly
provided him with an undivided share in the premises, wherein he
claims to have been allocated 550 square feet out of the total area of
22,000 square feet with entitlement to ‘receive right, title, interest, free
of any encumbrances’ therein.
6. In the aftermath of this settlement, several consequential events
unfolded. Evidently, the partners of Respondent No. 2, along with
Respondent No.1, entered into a Lease and License Agreement dated
15.10.2021, with M/s KMG Global as the licensee, for a period of 12
months in respect of the subject land. The Appellant has categorically
asserted that this Agreement was executed without his consent and
knowledge. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 firm and its partners
claimed to have surrendered their tenancy rights on 19.10.2022 qua
the subject land. Pursuant to these developments, Respondent No. 1
once again filed an impleadment application in the Eviction suit relying
Page 3 of 10
on the Family Settlement Agreement. He simultaneously lodged an
application before the Registrar of Firms seeking recognition as a
partner in Respondent No. 2 firm. Whilst these applications remained
pending, Respondent No. 1 instituted a separate suit, which, according
to the Appellant, was merely an attempt to create a paper trail of
Respondent No. 1’s alleged physical possession of the disputed area in
the subject land.
7. It appears that following the surrender of tenancy rights by
Respondent No. 2 and its partners, the Appellant unconditionally
withdrew the Eviction Suit vide order dated 13.01.2023, wherein the
Small Causes Court also rejected Respondent No. 1’s second
application for impleadment. Consequently, the Appellant effectuated a
leave and license agreement dated 11.04.2023 with M/s KMG Global
over a built-up area of 2,200 square feet.
8. Thereafter, Respondent No.1, asserting his status as one of the
partners of Respondent No.2, on the basis of the Family Settlement
Agreement, filed a suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 before the
Small Causes Court seeking declaration of his tenancy rights with
respect to an undivided area of 550 square feet purportedly forming
part of the premises leased to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1
averred in this fresh suit that by virtue of his partnership status in
Respondent No.2 as per the Family Settlement Agreement, any
Page 4 of 10
surrender of tenancy rights by Respondent No.2 firm qua the subject
land without his signature or consent would be illegal and non-binding.
Respondent No.1 also filed an application bearing No. Exhibit 10
praying for interim protection in the form of his possession over the
area measuring 550 square feet and restraining the Appellant from
dispossessing him therefrom. The Small Causes Court, vide order dated
27.04.2023 granted interim protection to Respondent No.1 and
subsequently confirmed the same vide order dated 10.05.2023. The
aggrieved Appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed by the
Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court vide order
dated 20.12.2023.
9. Respondent No.1 consequently filed Writ Petition (C)
No.763/2024, which stands allowed and by way of impugned order, the
High Court has restored the order dated 27.04.2023 of the Small
Causes Court and granted injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1.
10. The aggrieved Appellant is thus before this Court.
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant,
contended that the impugned injunction order has effectively paralyzed
the Appellant’s legitimate redevelopment plans, causing substantial
financial detriment. He underscored that despite the disputed area of
550 square feet being merely a small fragment of the entire property,
the restraint qua this portion has brought the entire project to a
Page 5 of 10
grinding halt. He further propounded that the High Court gravely erred
in issuing an injunction in the absence of any eviction proceedings
initiated by the Appellant against Respondent No. 1. Mr. Divan posited
that Respondent No. 1 lacks the locus standi to obstruct the Appellant’s
development rights as he is neither in lawful nor actual possession of
the subject land. It was advanced that the original tenants had
unequivocally surrendered their tenancy rights, thereby conferring
complete and unencumbered rights upon the Appellant to deal with
his property.
12. Per Contra , Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, vigorously urged that the
impugned order is in the nature of a injunction not to
simpliciter
dispossess Respondent No.1 from the subject property without due
process of law and has been in force for more than 20 months with only
a brief hiatus in the interregnum . He staunchly maintained that the
Appellant has not filed any suit to evict Respondent No. 1, rather he
withdrew the Eviction Suit filed against Respondent No. 2
unconditionally vide order dated 13.01.2023. He further expounded
that rights in the disputed property emanate from a Family Settlement
Agreement mediated through a Mediator appointed by this Court, and
allowing the instant petition would overturn the Consent Order passed
by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5587 of 2020. Mr. Chowdhury adduced
Page 6 of 10
that the putative Surrender Letter relied upon by the Appellant is ex
facie forged and illegal, inasmuch as it is bereft of any reference to any
area being surrendered; it is not signed by all partners; and it
inexplicably purports to surrender valuable property rights without
any consideration.
13. Having heard learned Senior Counsels on behalf of both the
parties and after perusing the record, we deem it approprite to clarify
at the outset that the issue regarding the tenancy rights of Respondent
No. 1 or of the partners of Respondent No. 2, who happen to be his
family members, is sub-judice before the Small Causes Court in R.A.D.
Suit No. 519/2023. The short question that falls for our consideration
thus is whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim
injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 in a modified term during the
pendency of the Suit.
14. The High Court has, in the impugned order, noted that
Respondent No.1 is a tenant/joint tenant of the subject land based on
the Appellant’s alleged admission acknowledging his possession. Mr.
Shyam Divan, however, strongly refuted this finding, contending that
the Appellant’s counsel had characterized Respondent No. 1 as a rank
trespasser during the course of inter-party negotiations and such
references, made in the context of settlement discussions, cannot be
Page 7 of 10
construed as conclusive admissions for the purpose of granting
injunction by the High Court.
15. The law governing the grant of interim injunction is well-settled.
This Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently held that
before granting an interim injunction, the Court must satisfy itself of
three essential prerequisites: firstly , the existence of a prima facie case
in favour of the applicant evincing a reasonable probability of success
at trial; secondly , that the balance of convenience lies in favour of
granting the injunctive relief; and thirdly , that the applicant would
suffer irreparable injury or harm not adequately compensable in
damages if the injunction is refused. It is only when these three
conditions are cumulatively fulfilled that an interim injunction ought
to be granted.
16. Applying the principles delineated above to the facts at hand, we
are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting the
injunction in favour of Respondent No.1. We say so for the reason that
the Appellant is incontrovertibly the absolute owner of the property,
with the disputed area constituting merely a fraction of the entire
premises. The Appellant has already entered into an agreement to
redevelop the property. In these circumstances, the restraint imposed
by the impugned injunction significantly circumscribes the Appellant’s
legal right to derive commercial benefit from his property.
Page 8 of 10
17. It further seems to us that Respondent No.1 has failed to establish
a prima facie case in his favour as the question of tenancy rights
claimed by him is pending adjudication before the Small Causes Court,
and at this stage, material ambiguities persist regarding the validity of
his claim. Even though Respondent No. 1 claims rights and partnership
in the Respondent No. 2 firm through a Family Settlement Agreement,
such contention requires deeper scrutiny, which can only be
undertaken during the course of trial of his civil suit. Concerning the
balance of convenience, it decidedly tilts in favour of the Appellant,
considering that the disputed area is merely 550 square feet out of the
total area of 22,000 square feet, and the Appellant has already entered
into a leave and license agreement dated 11.04.2023 with M/s KMG
Global covering a built-up area of 2,200 square feet. The injunction has
thus inordinately impeded the entire redevelopment project for a
relatively small disputed portion. Moreover, the Appellant would suffer
irreparable injury if the injunction is allowed to operate, given that the
protracted delay is not only causing substantial financial losses but
also affecting the Appellant’s contractual obligations, which cannot be
adequately compensated at a belated stage.
18. Conversely, Respondent No. 1 would not suffer any irremediable
loss as his alleged tenancy rights over an area measuring 550 square
feet can be adequately safeguarded.
Page 9 of 10
19. For the reasons aforestated, we allow the instant appeal and set
aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.07.2024. However,
with a view to balance equities, the Appellant is hereby directed to keep
one unit measuring about 550 square feet reserved in the developed
property as a security to protect the alleged rights of Respondent No.1,
in the event that the Suit pending before the Small Causes Court is
decided in his favour.
20. We clarify that this order does not express any opinion on the
merits of the tenancy dispute pending before the Small Causes Court.
The said Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter in R.A.D. Suit
No.519/2023 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made herein and expeditiously.
..........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
……….…………………..........................J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
May 13, 2025
Page 10 of 10
2025 INSC 663
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. ________ / 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 2657/2025)
Tushar Himatlal Jani … Appellant
versus
Jasbir Singh Vijan & Ors. … Respondents
JUDGMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2024
passed by the High Court of Bombay ( High Court ) restraining
the Appellant from dispossessing Respondent No. 1 or creating any
third-party interest in the disputed premises.
3. The facts leading to the instant appeal are that the Appellant’s
father was the owner of a plot admeasuring 22,000 square feet bearing
C.T.S. Nos.443(part), 451(part), 452A(part) at Vittalwadi, Ghatala
Village, Chembur, Mumbai. Out of the said area, the Appellant’s father
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.05.13
15:48:08 IST
Reason:
leased out 11,250 square feet i.e. the subject land, to a partnership
firm, namely M/s Silver Chem (India)/Respondent No.2, which was
Page 1 of 10
owned by the Vijan family members in 1972. It seems that upon the
death of his father, the entire property devolved upon the Appellant.
The Appellant terminated the above-mentioned lease agreement
vide notice dated 11.02.2008 and, in furtherance thereof, filed Eviction
Suit No. 119/148 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay
( Small Causes Court ).
4. Notably, Respondent No.1, who claims to be the legal heir of one
of the partners of Respondent No. 2, allegedly runs a business from the
suit structure in the name and style of M/s Asset Motors. He, thus, filed
an Impleadment Application in the Eviction Suit, contending that he is
a necessary and proper party whose rights would be directly affected by
the outcome of the proceedings. Respondent No.1 postulated his
undivided share in the business of Respondent No. 2 by virtue of a
Memorandum of Understanding executed amongst the Vijan family
members and further relied on his institution of a separate suit (bearing
th
No.441/2014) before the High Court seeking partition of his 1/6
undivided share in all the properties owned and held by the Vijan
family. The Small Causes Court allowed the impleadment application
vide order dated 06.10.2016. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, preferred a revision petition before the Appellate Small
Causes Court, which was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2019, setting
aside the order of impleadment.
Page 2 of 10
5. Members of the Vijan family, i.e. the partners of Respondent
No. 2 and Respondent No. 1, purportedly entered into a Family
Settlement Agreement on 09.06.2021 to resolve their inter se
differences, which referred to Respondent No. 1’s entitlement to 550
square feet area within the subject land. This Family Settlement was
the outcome of mediation efforts facilitated by a learned Mediator
appointed by this Court in several petitions between members of the
Vijan family. According to Respondent No.1, the Agreement ostensibly
provided him with an undivided share in the premises, wherein he
claims to have been allocated 550 square feet out of the total area of
22,000 square feet with entitlement to ‘receive right, title, interest, free
of any encumbrances’ therein.
6. In the aftermath of this settlement, several consequential events
unfolded. Evidently, the partners of Respondent No. 2, along with
Respondent No.1, entered into a Lease and License Agreement dated
15.10.2021, with M/s KMG Global as the licensee, for a period of 12
months in respect of the subject land. The Appellant has categorically
asserted that this Agreement was executed without his consent and
knowledge. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 firm and its partners
claimed to have surrendered their tenancy rights on 19.10.2022 qua
the subject land. Pursuant to these developments, Respondent No. 1
once again filed an impleadment application in the Eviction suit relying
Page 3 of 10
on the Family Settlement Agreement. He simultaneously lodged an
application before the Registrar of Firms seeking recognition as a
partner in Respondent No. 2 firm. Whilst these applications remained
pending, Respondent No. 1 instituted a separate suit, which, according
to the Appellant, was merely an attempt to create a paper trail of
Respondent No. 1’s alleged physical possession of the disputed area in
the subject land.
7. It appears that following the surrender of tenancy rights by
Respondent No. 2 and its partners, the Appellant unconditionally
withdrew the Eviction Suit vide order dated 13.01.2023, wherein the
Small Causes Court also rejected Respondent No. 1’s second
application for impleadment. Consequently, the Appellant effectuated a
leave and license agreement dated 11.04.2023 with M/s KMG Global
over a built-up area of 2,200 square feet.
8. Thereafter, Respondent No.1, asserting his status as one of the
partners of Respondent No.2, on the basis of the Family Settlement
Agreement, filed a suit bearing R.A.D. Suit No. 519/2023 before the
Small Causes Court seeking declaration of his tenancy rights with
respect to an undivided area of 550 square feet purportedly forming
part of the premises leased to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No.1
averred in this fresh suit that by virtue of his partnership status in
Respondent No.2 as per the Family Settlement Agreement, any
Page 4 of 10
surrender of tenancy rights by Respondent No.2 firm qua the subject
land without his signature or consent would be illegal and non-binding.
Respondent No.1 also filed an application bearing No. Exhibit 10
praying for interim protection in the form of his possession over the
area measuring 550 square feet and restraining the Appellant from
dispossessing him therefrom. The Small Causes Court, vide order dated
27.04.2023 granted interim protection to Respondent No.1 and
subsequently confirmed the same vide order dated 10.05.2023. The
aggrieved Appellant preferred an appeal which was allowed by the
Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court vide order
dated 20.12.2023.
9. Respondent No.1 consequently filed Writ Petition (C)
No.763/2024, which stands allowed and by way of impugned order, the
High Court has restored the order dated 27.04.2023 of the Small
Causes Court and granted injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1.
10. The aggrieved Appellant is thus before this Court.
11. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant,
contended that the impugned injunction order has effectively paralyzed
the Appellant’s legitimate redevelopment plans, causing substantial
financial detriment. He underscored that despite the disputed area of
550 square feet being merely a small fragment of the entire property,
the restraint qua this portion has brought the entire project to a
Page 5 of 10
grinding halt. He further propounded that the High Court gravely erred
in issuing an injunction in the absence of any eviction proceedings
initiated by the Appellant against Respondent No. 1. Mr. Divan posited
that Respondent No. 1 lacks the locus standi to obstruct the Appellant’s
development rights as he is neither in lawful nor actual possession of
the subject land. It was advanced that the original tenants had
unequivocally surrendered their tenancy rights, thereby conferring
complete and unencumbered rights upon the Appellant to deal with
his property.
12. Per Contra , Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, vigorously urged that the
impugned order is in the nature of a injunction not to
simpliciter
dispossess Respondent No.1 from the subject property without due
process of law and has been in force for more than 20 months with only
a brief hiatus in the interregnum . He staunchly maintained that the
Appellant has not filed any suit to evict Respondent No. 1, rather he
withdrew the Eviction Suit filed against Respondent No. 2
unconditionally vide order dated 13.01.2023. He further expounded
that rights in the disputed property emanate from a Family Settlement
Agreement mediated through a Mediator appointed by this Court, and
allowing the instant petition would overturn the Consent Order passed
by this Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5587 of 2020. Mr. Chowdhury adduced
Page 6 of 10
that the putative Surrender Letter relied upon by the Appellant is ex
facie forged and illegal, inasmuch as it is bereft of any reference to any
area being surrendered; it is not signed by all partners; and it
inexplicably purports to surrender valuable property rights without
any consideration.
13. Having heard learned Senior Counsels on behalf of both the
parties and after perusing the record, we deem it approprite to clarify
at the outset that the issue regarding the tenancy rights of Respondent
No. 1 or of the partners of Respondent No. 2, who happen to be his
family members, is sub-judice before the Small Causes Court in R.A.D.
Suit No. 519/2023. The short question that falls for our consideration
thus is whether the High Court was justified in restoring the interim
injunction in favour of Respondent No. 1 in a modified term during the
pendency of the Suit.
14. The High Court has, in the impugned order, noted that
Respondent No.1 is a tenant/joint tenant of the subject land based on
the Appellant’s alleged admission acknowledging his possession. Mr.
Shyam Divan, however, strongly refuted this finding, contending that
the Appellant’s counsel had characterized Respondent No. 1 as a rank
trespasser during the course of inter-party negotiations and such
references, made in the context of settlement discussions, cannot be
Page 7 of 10
construed as conclusive admissions for the purpose of granting
injunction by the High Court.
15. The law governing the grant of interim injunction is well-settled.
This Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently held that
before granting an interim injunction, the Court must satisfy itself of
three essential prerequisites: firstly , the existence of a prima facie case
in favour of the applicant evincing a reasonable probability of success
at trial; secondly , that the balance of convenience lies in favour of
granting the injunctive relief; and thirdly , that the applicant would
suffer irreparable injury or harm not adequately compensable in
damages if the injunction is refused. It is only when these three
conditions are cumulatively fulfilled that an interim injunction ought
to be granted.
16. Applying the principles delineated above to the facts at hand, we
are of the considered view that the High Court erred in granting the
injunction in favour of Respondent No.1. We say so for the reason that
the Appellant is incontrovertibly the absolute owner of the property,
with the disputed area constituting merely a fraction of the entire
premises. The Appellant has already entered into an agreement to
redevelop the property. In these circumstances, the restraint imposed
by the impugned injunction significantly circumscribes the Appellant’s
legal right to derive commercial benefit from his property.
Page 8 of 10
17. It further seems to us that Respondent No.1 has failed to establish
a prima facie case in his favour as the question of tenancy rights
claimed by him is pending adjudication before the Small Causes Court,
and at this stage, material ambiguities persist regarding the validity of
his claim. Even though Respondent No. 1 claims rights and partnership
in the Respondent No. 2 firm through a Family Settlement Agreement,
such contention requires deeper scrutiny, which can only be
undertaken during the course of trial of his civil suit. Concerning the
balance of convenience, it decidedly tilts in favour of the Appellant,
considering that the disputed area is merely 550 square feet out of the
total area of 22,000 square feet, and the Appellant has already entered
into a leave and license agreement dated 11.04.2023 with M/s KMG
Global covering a built-up area of 2,200 square feet. The injunction has
thus inordinately impeded the entire redevelopment project for a
relatively small disputed portion. Moreover, the Appellant would suffer
irreparable injury if the injunction is allowed to operate, given that the
protracted delay is not only causing substantial financial losses but
also affecting the Appellant’s contractual obligations, which cannot be
adequately compensated at a belated stage.
18. Conversely, Respondent No. 1 would not suffer any irremediable
loss as his alleged tenancy rights over an area measuring 550 square
feet can be adequately safeguarded.
Page 9 of 10
19. For the reasons aforestated, we allow the instant appeal and set
aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.07.2024. However,
with a view to balance equities, the Appellant is hereby directed to keep
one unit measuring about 550 square feet reserved in the developed
property as a security to protect the alleged rights of Respondent No.1,
in the event that the Suit pending before the Small Causes Court is
decided in his favour.
20. We clarify that this order does not express any opinion on the
merits of the tenancy dispute pending before the Small Causes Court.
The said Court shall proceed to adjudicate the matter in R.A.D. Suit
No.519/2023 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made herein and expeditiously.
..........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
……….…………………..........................J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
May 13, 2025
Page 10 of 10