AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 27-08-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 1 as also Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
The present appeal has been preferred for the grant of following relief(s):
“for impugning the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-X, Patna in Title Suit No. 56 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has rejected the prayer of the appellant for grant of injunction despite the fact that admittedly the appellant has made out a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellant and if the injunction is not granted then the appellant will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated and as such the order impeached is liable to be set aside and injunction be granted in favour of the appellant.”
The matter relates to a piece of land under the Phulwarisharif Circle, in the district of Patna with following details:
“Khata No.50;
Khesra No.548;
Area 13.5 kathas.”
The appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent’s father (now deceased) and the claim is that altogether Rs. 80,00,000/- was paid between 09.09.2016 to 03.04.2021 and Rs. 20,00,000/- on 10.04.2021. Unfortunately, Covid-19 which took its tall all over the country, the respondents’ father also became part of it and in the month of April, 2021, he died.
The claim of the appellant is that, in between, he paid Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to the deceased father of the respondents. The actual amount that was to be paid is/are/was Rs. 1,68,75,000/- for 13.5 Katthas of the aforesaid land. The delay in execution was the presence of high tension wire on the said land and they had decided to get it removed first which was actually done by the appellant.
The contention is that once the father of the respondents died, the appellant met the respondent no.1 several times but without any success. A legal notice was sent on 18.11.2020 which got returned undelivered and when the appellant came to know that the land brokers are negotiating with the respondent no. 1, he preferred Title Suit No. 56 of 2022.
However, the respondent no.1 went ahead and started executing the sale deed. Though, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, these are sham transaction, still as the suit otherwise would have become infructuous, an injunction petition was preferred under order 39 Rule (1) and (2) read with section 151 of the C.P.C. after service of copy to the respondent no. 1-defendant.
The matter was heard by the competent Court and vide an order dated 16.05.2025, it recorded that the plaintiff (appellant herein) has failed to prove his case prima facie and also failed to prove how he will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not allowed. Accordingly, the injunction petition was rejected.
Aggrieved, the present appeal.
In this case, notice was issued and pursuant thereto, all the respondents have appeared. As recorded above, while Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, learned counsel is representing the respondent no. 1, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar represents the respondent nos. 2 to 4, the heirs/daughters of the original land holders and sisters of the respondent no. 1.
This Court will firstly deal with the case of respondent nos. 2 to 4 who are sisters of the respondent no. 1. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel submits that all of them are married and settled with their respective families. They have nothing to do with present transaction and further, so far as the alleged alienation of land is concerned, that too is attributed to respondent no. 1. Though they reserve their respective rights to stake claim as and when required, in the present transaction, they have no role to play.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that apprehension that was raised in the injunction petition and ignored by the competent Court now stands proved inasmuch as all the lands which were part of the suit in question now stands alienated.
The supplementary affidavit has been filed by the appellant and with the help of paragraph no.6, it has been informed that the respondent no.1 has executed the deed in favour of Urmila Devi, Mantosh Kumar, Vicky Kumari, Jitendra Kumar, Samrat Singh, Juli Kumari and Ayushi Kumari. He submits that though for the record, the transactions have taken place, all are sham transactions and actually the transfer has made to the family members.
The submission is that in view of the changed circumstance, the prayer to set aside the order passed by the competent court in injunction petition has become infructuous. However, in the fitness of the things, the only prayer is that the title suit he expedited and taken to its logical conclusion without unnecessary adjournment by the competent Court.
The further submission is that he will be now preferring petition before the Civil Court for incorporation of the new purchasers who have now come into the shoes of the respondent no.1. The submission further is that due to the competent Court ignoring the valid points raised by the appellant in the injunction petition, now he is forced to cope up with the new list of defendants.
Mr. Baidyanath Thakur is representing the respondent no. 1 and according to him, the appellant ought to have got the land executed in time as the first payment was made in the year 2016 when his father was alive. However, till the April, 2021 when the Covid-19 took its tall, he failed to do the same and actually, the agreement shows that it should have been completed in six months. In that background, the respondent no. 1 made valid transactions. The Title suit is there and he is also ready to take it to its logical conclusion without unnecessary delay.
Learned counsel further submits that though the appellant claims to have paid Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to his father, actually to the best of his knowledge, only Rs. 50,00,000/-were paid. However, even accepting the words, the respondent no. 1 is ready to pay one crore to the appellant.
Having heard the parties, the points that this Court has taken note of is/are that:
the father of the respondent no.1 entered into an agreement with the appellant which followed payment of almost Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the aforesaid 13.5 Katthas of land at Phulwarisharif, Patna as per the stand of the appellant;
there was a hight tension electric wire over the land, the removal of which delayed the execution of the sale deed;
unfortunately, the father of the respondent no.1 died in the year 2021;
once the father of the respondent no.1 left this world, the son changed track and despite the knowledge of huge transaction made with the appellant, decided not to hand it over the land to him;
the notice served was also returned unserved.
Left with no remedy, the appellant moved before the competent Court by filing Title suit no. 56 of 2022. As heavy transaction took place for the 13.5 kathas of land, sensing that the respondent no. 1 is in the process of alienating the land, an injunction petition was filed stating that if the land gets alienated, the case would lose its shine.
However, the Court vide an order dated 16.05.2025 rejected the injunction petition and held as follows:
“Therefore, after careful perusal and scrutiny of materials available on record this court finds that plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie case & balance of convenience and he also failed to prove that how plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if injunction was not allowed. So, considering all these aspects of the case, this Court finds that the petition of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule (1) & (2) and 151 CPC filed by the Plaintiff on dt 15/03/2022 is not maintainable at this stage. Accordingly, the injunction petition dated 15.03.2022 filed on behalf of plaintiff stands REJECTED.”
To reject the petition, the learned Court has taken into consideration the case of amongst other, M/s Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs The Coco Cola & Co. & Ors. reported in (1995) SC 441 which read as follows:
“In the case of "M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd & ors vs The Coca Cola & Co & Ors (1995) SC 441 where Supreme Court has held as under: "50. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings."
A perusal of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s order would show that the GBC (supra) approached the High Court earlier for vacating the injunction order. The Court further recorded that the conduct of the party invoking jurisdiction has to be taken into consideration. This consideration will arise not only in respect of person who seeks order of injunction but also in respect of party approaching the Court for vacating the temporary injunction already granted in the suit proceedings.
The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been quoted by this Court only to observe that the Title Court has very poor understanding of law. The aforesaid order in no circumstance can be made applicable in the case of the appellant.
The Court further failed to appreciate that the suit was brought by the appellant-plaintiff for a direction upon the respondent no. 1 to execute and register the land in question by way of sale deed and if the lands stand transferred, the suit shall become infructuous.
However, not only the Court failed to consider it, actually recorded the orders out of context by observing that the plaintiff failed to prove how he will suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not allowed.
The events that unfolded thereafter clearly show that the Court completely failed to appreciate the case. Quoting number of judgments do not better an erroneous order, the sooner the Court realizes, the better.
This Court has taken note of a case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others [Civil Appeal no. 13001 of 2024 (S.L.A. {Civil} No. 252 of 2023)] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down the principles governing grant of temporary injunction. Paragraph nos. 33 and 34 read as under:
“33.In the case of Anand Prasad Agarwal v. Tarkeshwar Prasad reported in (2001) 5 SCC 568, it was held by this Court that it would not be appropriate for any court to hold a mini-trial at the stage of grant of temporary injunction.
34.The burden is on the plaintiff, by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise, to prove that there is "a prima facie case" in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition precedent for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the court would result in "irreparable injury" to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party except one to grant injunction and he needs protection from the consequences of apprehended injury or dispossession. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one, namely one that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages. The third condition also is that "the balance of convenience" must be in favour of granting injunction. The Court while granting or refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing competing possibilities or probabilities of likelihood of injury and if the Court considers that pending the suit, the subject matter should be maintained in status quo, an injunction would be issued. Thus, the Court has to exercise its sound judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad interim injunction pending the suit. (See: Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719.)”
Further, the meaning of the expression ‘Perverse’ has been recorded in paragraph nos. 35 and 36 which again read as under:
“35.Any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough reported in (1878) 1 LR 1r 331, the Court observed that a perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey reported in 106 NW 814, the Court defined "perverse" as "turned the wrong way"; not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
36.The expression "perverse" has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:
a. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Ed.
Perverse - Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.
b. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English International Edition
Perverse - Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.
c. The New Oxford Dictionary of English - 1998 Edition
Perverse Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
d. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition)
Perverse - Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.
e. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Ed.
Perverse - A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.”
This Court has further taken note of the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Mahesh Kumar And 3 others vs. Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia (First Appeal no. 2422 of 2025) which has also taken note of the Ramakant Ambalal Choksi (supra) case. Paragraph nos. 14 to 21 of the said order read as under:
“14.The Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi (supra) has held that interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. can be granted in favour of the plaintiff for restraining the defendant from alienating or selling of the disputed property and a plea of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be taken for not granting the above relief. The Apex Court has specifically held that if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was regarded to have provided, all the panacea against the pendente lite transfer then legislature would not have provided the remedy of interim injunction under Order 39 C.P.C.. The Apex Court has specifically held that in a particular case, a relief of injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs for restraining pendente lite transfers in an appropriate case.
15.I have considered the case laws submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, which are not applicable on the facts of the case. All the case laws deal with an agreement to sell, which reiterate the settled legal position that the agreement to sell does not confer any right, title or interest in the disputed property. Further, it has been mentioned that for obtaining the decree of specific performance in its favour, the plaintiff has to prove readiness and willingness to perform its part of the agreement.
16.In the case of Guruswamy Nadar (supra), the Apex Court has considered the effect of lispendens between the original parties and has held that party purchasing the property after the suit had been filed by the original purchaser, does not get good title. It was further held that the benefit of exception was not available to that party in view of doctrine of lispendens. There is no quarrel with the above proposition of law.
17.It is apparent that the plaintiffs, apprehension is that the defendant is intending to sell the disputed land and if the defendants succeeds in doing so, it will create complications in the suit and it will create third party rights and for avoiding this, the plaintiffs have filed the interim injunction application before the trial court, which has been rejected on the erroneous reasoning that neither the plaintiffs are the owner of the disputed land nor in possession, which is an admitted position of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs are not protecting their possession of the disputed land. As such, the above reasoning of the trial court is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
18.It is apparent that in given circumstances, the relief of interim injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant for preventing the defendant from alienating or transferring the disputed property, even if the principle of lispendens enumerated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi (supra).
19.In view of the aforesaid facts, the trial court has certainly erred in rejecting the plaintiffs' interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., which deserves to be allowed.
20.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.09.2025 is set aside. The plaintiffs' application 6C-2 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. stands allowed. Consequently, the defendant is restrained from alienating, transferring or creating third party rights in the disputed land, during the pendency of the suit.
21.The trial court is directed to decide the original suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without affording unnecessary adjournments to the parties, on merits, in accordance with law.”
This Court observes that due to the erroneous order of the Title Court, the appellant is now burdened with filing an appropriate petition for impleading the new purchasers as defendants. But for the new development that took place, it was a fit case for interference.
However, now that the alienation has already taken place, the only direction now that can be given by this Court and recorded hereinbelow is/are that:
“(i)the respondent no. 2 to 4 (sisters) will have the right to raise their respective stake as and when required:
(ii)the appellant herein shall implead the new purchasers in the list of defendants in the next two weeks;
(iii)if the new defendants are added in the next two weeks, the Trial Court shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law and without unnecessary adjournments.”
Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties are agreed to the fact that suit needs early disposal preferably within six months.
However, this Court is of the view that now the new defendants are to be incorporated and notices are to be issued to them, some more time have to be granted. This Court thus fixes nine months’ time by which the Title Court shall be taking the Title Suit No. 56 of 2022 to its logical conclusion. The long adjournments should be avoided and if the matter is not taken to its logical conclusion within nine months, the Court shall submit the reason for its non conclusion by filing a detailed report to the Patna High Court.
The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 581 of 2025 stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.