Interim injunction refused where plaintiff fails to prove possession against registered sale deed recitals.

The appellant/plaintiff, a resident of Tamil Nadu, filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding suit property in Durg, Chhattisgarh

The appellant alleged that a 2011 agreement to sell with the father of Respondent No. 2 failed due to non-payment of consideration, and the earnest money was refunded

He claimed he was induced to execute a Power of Attorney (PoA) in 2012 in favor of Respondent No. 2 for property maintenance, asserting he was unaware of the contents due to a language barrier

Respondent No. 2 used the PoA to execute a sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 1 on 28.01.2025

The respondents contended that full consideration was paid in 2012, possession was transferred then, and the registered PoA remained unchallenged for 13 years

The Trial Court rejected the appellant’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC

1. Whether the Trial Court acted with illegality or perversity in rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC

2. Whether the appellant established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury to warrant an interim injunction

The Court applied the principles governing temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which require the concurrent satisfaction of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss

It further relied on the principle that recitals in a registered sale deed regarding consideration and possession carry a presumption of correctness at the interlocutory stage

The Court also noted that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, disputed questions regarding the voidability of a sale due to non-payment of consideration or fraud are matters for trial

The Court found that the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence, such as revenue records or proof of agricultural income, to substantiate his claim of continued possession

In contrast, the registered sale deed of 2025 executed by the PoA holder explicitly acknowledged the receipt of consideration through specific cheque numbers and recorded the transfer of possession to Respondent No. 1

The Court reasoned that the appellant's claims of fraud, misuse of the PoA, and non-receipt of consideration are disputed questions of fact that can only be adjudicated during a full trial

Consequently, as the appellant could not establish a prima facie case or prove that the balance of convenience rested in his favor, the Trial Court’s refusal to grant an injunction was legally sound

It held that the appellant failed to satisfy the tripartite test for a temporary injunction and that the findings regarding the absence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience were based on sound reasoning

No interference was warranted under the appellate jurisdiction of Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC