Interim relief for specific performance of oral agreements requires a high burden of proof on undisputed facts.

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based on an alleged oral agreement to purchase a property in Village Burari, Delhi, for Rs. 1 Crore

The Plaintiff claimed to have paid approximately Rs. 11 Lakhs through bank transfers and relied on WhatsApp communications as evidence of the contract

The Respondents (Defendants) contested the suit, asserting the payments were related to a separate steel scrap transaction worth Rs. 1.25 Lakhs and that they had proactively sought to reverse unauthorized credit entries and lodged police complaints

The Trial Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC

The Plaintiff appealed this dismissal

1. Whether the Plaintiff established a strong prima facie case based on undisputed facts to warrant an interim injunction in a suit for specific performance involving an oral agreement

2. Whether the Plaintiff’s conduct, including the alleged suppression of material facts regarding the reversal of payments, disentitles him to discretionary equitable relief

The Court applied Section 36 and 37 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, noting that temporary injunctions are regulated by the CPC and that specific performance is a discretionary remedy

Relying on Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP Ltd., the Court held that a plaintiff seeking an injunction for an oral contract must establish a "strong prima facie case on the basis of undisputed facts"

Per M.P. Mathur v. DTC, the Court must consider the "mutuality" of the contract and the conduct of the parties

Finally, under Anil Kumar v. Seema Thakur, four essential ingredients must be certain for a property agreement: particulars of consideration, identity of parties, identity of property, and other material terms like timelines

The Court observed that no written agreement existed and the burden of proof for oral agreements is exceptionally high

The Court found the Plaintiff's evidence insufficient because the WhatsApp messages referenced only one Khasra number, whereas the suit property comprised two

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s payment timeline (four months apart) was inconsistent with the alleged two-month completion period

Conversely, the Defendants’ immediate actions—notifying banks to reverse credits and filing a Cyber Crime Cell complaint—strengthened their defense that no consensus ad idem existed

Critically, the Court noted that the Plaintiff suppressed the fact that the credit entries were reversed prior to the filing of the suit, violating the principle that those seeking equity must come with clean hands

The Court also highlighted the Trial Court's finding that the alleged sale consideration (Rs. 1 Crore) was grossly understated compared to the property's estimated value of Rs. 30 Crores

The Court affirmed the Trial Court's reasoning as just and proper, concluding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, consensus ad idem, or certainty of material terms

All pending applications were closed