Facts
The Appellant (Kirit) purchased the suit property (Plot No. 27, Surat) via a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2024 from Respondents No. 2 and 3 for a consideration of Rs. 2,10,16,000 paid via cheques
Source reference: p. 3, 6Respondent No. 1 (Mayankbhai) contested this, claiming prior possession and rights based on a registered agreement to sell dated 04.05.2007, alleging a cash payment of Rs. 39,00,000
Source reference: p. 4, 13Following disputes and a police complaint regarding alleged trespassing and demolition of a compound wall, both parties filed suits
Source reference: p. 2-3The Trial Court, in a common order dated 17.11.2025, directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding title and possession
Source reference: p. 5The Appellant challenged this order, asserting his rights as a registered owner
Source reference: p. 6Issues
1. Whether an order of status quo regarding possession and title can be granted against a rightful owner holding a registered sale deed in favor of a party claiming rights under an agreement to sell without proof of actual possession.
Source reference: p. 232. Whether the Trial Court properly exercised its discretion in granting temporary injunction/status quo under Order 39 of the CPC.
Source reference: p. 16, 27Law Applied
The court applied Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, noting that an agreement to sell does not create title, which only passes via a registered deed of conveyance
Source reference: p. 10It relied on Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, affirming that an agreement of sale is not a conveyance
Source reference: p. 10Regarding proof of consideration, it referenced Ramabhai Becharbhai Baraiya v. Legal Heirs Vishnuprasad, requiring documentary evidence for large cash transactions
Source reference: p. 11On appellate interference, it cited Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, which permits setting aside discretionary orders if they are perverse, arbitrary, or palpably incorrect
Source reference: p. 17-18the doctrine that "possession follows title" for vacant land was applied
Source reference: p. 25Reasoning
The Court found the Trial Court's order perverse because it failed to distinguish between a registered title holder and a claimant under an agreement to sell
Source reference: p. 27The Appellant proved payment of consideration via cheques, whereas Respondent No. 1 failed to provide bank statements or tax returns to substantiate a Rs. 39 lakh cash transaction from 2007
Source reference: p. 26The Court observed that for open land, a legal presumption exists that possession remains with the title holder
Source reference: p. 25Correspondence with the electricity company and ledger entries provided by Respondent No. 1 were deemed insufficient to establish "settled possession" at the interim stage
Source reference: p. 24-25Restraining a rightful owner from developing their property based on unsubstantiated claims causes irreparable loss, shifting the balance of convenience in favor of the Appellant
Source reference: p. 12, 27Holding
The Court held that an injunction cannot be granted against a registered owner at the behest of a party who fails to prima facie establish title or possession
The High Court allowed the Appeal from Order and quashed the Trial Court’s direction of status quo dated 17.11.2025
Source reference: p. 28The Trial Court's order was deemed erroneous and against settled legal principles regarding the rights of a bona fide purchaser
Source reference: p. 27The request for a stay on this judgment was rejected
Source reference: p. 29Original Court PDF
KIRIT HIMMATLAL MORVADIYAvsMAYANKBHAI JITENDRABHAI JARIWALA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in