Joint title justifies temporary injunction when validity of alleged relinquishment remains a triable issue.

The Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) and Defendant No. 1 (Appellant No. 1) are brothers who jointly purchased agricultural land in 2008 via a registered sale deed.

The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 obtained an unregistered relinquishment deed from him under the guise of administrative necessity and subsequently mutated the entire property in his own name in 2012.

Defendant No. 1 later gifted the property to his wife (Defendant No. 2), who attempted to sell the land through a newspaper advertisement in 2023.

The Defendants contended that the Plaintiff voluntarily relinquished his rights after receiving funds for a business and that the revenue authorities had finalized the mutation.

The trial court granted a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, restraining the Defendants from alienating the property.

The Defendants appealed this order under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC.

1. Whether the trial court acted arbitrarily in finding a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff despite the existence of mutation entries in favor of the Defendants.

2. Whether the balance of convenience and the threat of irreparable injury justified an interim injunction against the alienation of the suit property.

The court primarily applied Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, which require a party seeking an injunction to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable injury.

It further relied on the principle that mutation entries in revenue records do not conclusively determine title and are subject to adjudication by civil courts.

Additionally, the court applied the standard for appellate review of discretionary orders under Order 43 Rule 1(r), which prohibits interference unless the lower court’s order is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to settled legal principles.

The High Court observed that the 2008 registered sale deed prima facie established the Plaintiff as a joint purchaser, giving him a substantive claim to the property.

The court noted that the Defendants relied on a relinquishment deed that was neither registered nor produced before the court, making its validity, voluntariness, and legal effect matters of trial.

The court rejected the argument that mutation entries were final, clarifying that such entries do not determine title when the underlying transaction is challenged in a civil suit.

On the issues of balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the court reasoned that permitting the sale of the property during litigation would create third-party rights and lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, whereas a restraint on alienation merely preserved the status quo without dispossessing the Defendants.

It held that the Plaintiff had successfully established the tripartite requirements for an injunction and that the trial court’s exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor perverse.

The Defendants remain restrained from selling or alienating the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit.