Woman With Sale Agreement For 5,400 Sq Ft Loses Bid To Freeze Land After Vendor Confirmed Rival Sale: Karnataka HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the plaintiff established grounds for temporary injunction, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal and left all parties’ contentions open.

It also directed

It expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit.

01Facts

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 5250/2024 claiming rights under an agreement of sale dated 17 June 2022, executed by defendant No. 5, for 5,400 sq. ft. forming part of the suit ‘B’ schedule property.

pp. 9–10, 16

She sought a declaration that a sale deed dated 12 May 2022 in favour of defendants 21–23 was not binding on her, and an injunction restraining alienation or encumbrance of the ‘B’ schedule property.

pp. 9–10, 16

The defendants 21–23 relied on the sale deed and a confirmation deed dated 14 October 2022, executed by defendant No. 5 and others, confirming the transaction in their favour.

pp. 12–13, 15

The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The plaintiff appealed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

pp. 8–10

02Issues

i.1. Whether the plaintiff established grounds for temporary injunction, including a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury

¶ 12–15 · pp. 16–18

ii.2. Whether the trial court’s refusal of injunction involved an error warranting appellate interference

¶ 8 · p. 14 · ¶ 16–17 · pp. 19–20

03Law Applied

Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, a temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience in the applicant’s favour, and likely irreparable injury; these requirements must be assessed together.

¶ 12 · p. 16 · Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi · ¶ 34 · pp. 23–24

Section 151 CPC was invoked in the interlocutory application.

Under Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., an appellate court does not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court merely because it might have reached a different conclusion; interference is warranted where discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or settled principles were ignored.

¶ 18 · pp. 20–23

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court found that the plaintiff’s claim rested on the agreement dated 17 June 2022, while defendants 21–23 relied on a registered sale deed and a confirmation deed executed by, among others, the plaintiff’s vendor, defendant No. 5.

¶ 13–15 · pp. 17–18

The plaintiff did not claim to be in possession and had not sought relief against the confirmation deed or the agreement in favour of defendants 21–23.

¶ 10–11, 15 · p. 16, 18

The Court therefore upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had not established the requirements for interim relief. Applying Wander Ltd., it found no perversity or other basis to disturb the trial court’s discretionary decision.

¶ 16–18 · pp. 19–23