After Substantial Construction, Bombay HC Declines Blanket Restraint On Virar Project In Heir’s 1/15th-Share Suit, Ordering ₹11,34,666 Deposit And A Reserved 2-BHK Flat

The petitioner claimed a 1/15th share in the suit property as a successor-in-interest of one of its original holders. She challenged a 2020 sale deed executed in favour of respondent No. 1, alleging it was based on a false, unregistered and insufficiently stamped power of attorney and did not bind her share.

The trial court temporarily restrained the defendants from creating third-party rights in the property; the District Court allowed respondent No. 1’s appeal and set aside that injunction, taking account of evidence of payment to the petitioner and substantial development on the property.

The petitioner challenged the appellate order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is not a substitute for an appeal on the merits. An appellate court reviewing a discretionary injunction order should interfere only where the discretion was exercised perversely or contrary to settled principles.

A prima facie case alone does not justify an injunction; the applicant must also establish irreparable injury and that the balance of convenience favours relief. The court must weigh the likely injury to both sides (Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi).

The court must also consider the parties’ conduct and the consequences of restraining substantial construction; a long period of inaction and significant development may weigh against an injunction (Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra).

Where construction is substantial and the claimant can be protected or compensated without stopping it, the balance of convenience may lie against an injunction (ECE Industries Ltd. v. S. P. Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.).

The Court assumed, for the interlocutory stage, that the petitioner had a prima facie case that the sale deed did not bind her share, while leaving the validity of the power of attorney and the sale deed for determination at trial.

It nevertheless found that a blanket restraint was not justified: the petitioner claimed only a 1/15th share, the other co-sharers had not challenged the transaction, and respondent No. 1 had carried out substantial construction, with third parties potentially affected by an injunction.

Applying the balance-of-convenience principles and the authorities on substantial construction, the Court declined to interfere with the District Court’s decision but directed security measures to protect the petitioner’s claim pending trial.

The deposit and flat are to abide by the suit’s final outcome, and respondent No. 1 may claim no equity from those arrangements; there was no order as to costs.