Calcutta HC Bars Sellers From Transferring Disputed Property Until Trial Court Decides Buyers’ Injunction Plea

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance based on a notarized agreement for sale dated 22 May 2025 and sought an interim injunction.

The Trial Court refused ad interim relief, noting that the plaintiffs had not shown that they had taken steps to comply with the agreement’s terms within the stipulated period.

The appellants’ initial appeal was dismissed by the District Court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction; after withdrawing a revision against that dismissal, they brought the present appeal, explaining the delay by their mistaken choice of forum.

The respondents disputed the plaintiffs’ performance, including payment of a further Rs. 2,00,000, and argued that no imminent transfer to third parties or delivery of possession had been shown.

The Court applied the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, under which an unregistered contract affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of the contract in a suit for specific performance.

It considered the injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and heard the appeal under Order XLI Rule 11.

At the ex parte stage, the Court assessed the plaintiffs’ sworn pleadings because the defendants had not yet had an opportunity to present their case.

The Court found the appellants’ explanation for delay sufficient: they had pursued an appeal that was admitted but later dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, supporting their bona fides.

On interim relief, the notarized agreement could be considered despite being unregistered, and the plaint and injunction application contained sufficient averments of urgency and readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration.

Those materials established a sufficiently strong prima facie case to restrain the defendants from creating third-party interests, although they did not establish that possession had been delivered to the appellants.

The Court left the merits of the injunction application open for determination by the Trial Court.

It partially allowed the appeal, modifying the Trial Court’s order to restrain the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating, or creating third-party interests in the suit property until the Trial Court disposes of the temporary injunction application.

The defendants were directed to file their objections preferably within a fortnight, and the Trial Court was expected to decide the application by the end of December 2026 if that timeline was met.

No order as to costs was made.