advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, July 6, 2014

Without filing a suit for specific performance suit or with out reserving rights under Or.2, rule 2 , bare injunction suit is not maintainable = Lakshmi alias Bhagyalakshmi and Anr. … Appellant(s) Vs. E.Jayaram (D) by Lr. …Respondent(s)= 2013 ( Feb.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40024

 Without filing a suit for specific performance suit or  with out reserving rights under Or.2, rule 2 , bare injunction suit is not maintainable = 
 Ld.  Single  Judge  instead  of
considering the legality and propriety of the interim injunction granted  by
the Civil Judge proceeded to  decide  the  effect  of  Section  53A  of  the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.  The Ld. Single Judge is of  the  view  that
though the plaintiff is ready  and  willing  to  perform  her  part  of  the
contract, the fact that suit for bare injunction is  filed  without  seeking
leave under Order 2 rule 2 CPC reserving their right to sue  for  any  other
relief.  According to Ld.  Single  Judge  in  the  light  of  this,  if  the
respondent is barred from claiming any relief of specific  performance,  the
incidental relief of injunction would be unavailable to the respondents.    
learned single  judge  has  completely  misconstrued
the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and has committed serious  error
in deciding the scope of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act,  1882  and
Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.    As noticed above the Civil  Judge  while  granting
ad-interim  injunction  very  categorically  observed  in  the  order   that
respective rights of the parties shall be  decided  at  the  time  of  final
disposal of the suit.  The very fact that Plaintiff No.2  is  in  possession
of the  property  as  a  tenant  under  Plaintiff  No.1  and  possession  of
Plaintiff  No.2  was  not  denied,  the  interim  protection  was  given  to
Plaintiff No.2 against the threatened action of the defendants to evict  her
without following the due process of law.  In our  considered  opinion,  the
order passed by the learned single judge cannot be sustained in law.
8.    For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this  appeal  and  set  aside  the
order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid appeal arising  out  of  the
order of injunction.
2013 ( Feb.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40024
                                                   [REPORTABLE]

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.1004 of 201 3
         (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.1185 of 2006)

Lakshmi alias Bhagyalakshmi and Anr.                     …   Appellant(s)

                                     Vs.

E.Jayaram (D) by Lr.                                      …Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

      Leave granted.

2.    This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.08.2005  passed  by
a single Judge of the Karnataka High  Court  in  M.F.A.  No.  524  of  2003,
whereby the Learned Single Judge set aside  the  order  passed  by  the  VII
Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore  and  held  that  defendant-respondent  is
entitled to initiate action for ejectment of the  plaintiff-appellants  from
the suit property.
3.    The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
4.    The plaintiffs who  are  the  present  appellants  filed  a  suit  for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from  interfering
with their peaceful possession and enjoyment  of  the  suit  property.   The
plaintiff-appellants case was that Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute  owner  of
the suit  property  consisting  of  a  building  which  was  purchased  from
Defendant No.1 on a consideration of Rs.6,000/-  However,  sale  deed  could
not be registered as the registration was suspended by  the  Government  and
the defendant-respondents could not   get  clearance  from  the  Urban  Land
Ceiling  Authority.   The  plaintiff-appellant’s  further  case   was   that
although the sale deed was not registered,  the  entire  sale  consideration
was paid to Defendant No.1 by the plaintiff who was  put  in  possession  of
the suit property.  It was pleaded by the  plaintiffs  that  Plaintiff  No.1
leased out the suit property in favour of Defendant No.2 who is residing  in
the same suit property for the last 17 years.  Plaintiff-appellants  further
case was that they approached the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for change  of
kattas and, on enquiry, they learnt that Defendant No.1  with  an  intention
to grab the property concocted a gift deed in favour of Defendant No.2,  who
is his wife and on that basis moved an application  for  change  of  kattas.
Immediately, the plaintiffs caused a legal notice  dated  09.09.2002  asking
him to execute a sale deed in favour  of  Plaintiff  No.1.   The  plaintiffs
also caused a legal notice  on  Municipal  authorities  not  to  change  the
kattas  in  favour  of  Defendant  No.2  as  Defendant  No.1  has  no  right
whatsoever  to  gift  the  suit  property.   The  plaintiffs  alleged   that
defendants  along  with  their  henchmen  came  to  the  suit  property  and
threatened the plaintiff-appellants of dire  consequences  if  they  do  not
vacate the property within three days.  On account of repeated threats  from
the side of defendants, the plaintiffs were compelled to  file  a  suit  for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with  their
peaceful  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  suit  property.   A  separate
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC  seeking  an  ad-interim  relief
restraining the defendants from interfering with their  peaceful  possession
and enjoyment was filed.
5.    The defendant-respondents filed a written  statement  and  denied  the
averments made in the plaint.  The defendants denied  the  purchase  of  the
suit property by the plaintiff-appellants  from  Defendant-Respondent  No.1.
The defendants pleaded  about  their  family  settlement  whereby  the  suit
property was allotted to the defendants who put  construction  and  let  out
the same to Plaintiff No.2.  According to the defendants, Plaintiff No.1  is
a stranger.  In a nutshell the case of  the  defendants  is  that  Defendant
No.1 is the owner of the property and Plaintiff No.2 is a tenant  under  him
and that she was paying rent per month.
6.    The learned Additional  City  Civil  Judge  on  consideration  of  the
pleadings made by the parties and the documents filed by  them  allowed  the
application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2  CPC  and  granted
ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from  interfering
with  the  peaceful  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  suit  property  by
Plaintiff  No.2  till  disposal  of  the  suit.   While  granting  temporary
injunction the Civil Judge recorded the following reasons :-
              “From the allegations and  counter  allegations,  it  can  be
        crystallized that plaintiff no.2 is in possession of suit  schedule
        property and as such, the documents have  been  produced  and  even
        defendants admit the possession of plaintiff no.2.  As regards  the
        sale deed which is alleged  to  have  been  executed  the  same  is
        seriously disputed document.  Hence it need not  be  considered  at
        this stage.  The respective rights of the parties will have  to  be
        decided at the final disposal of the suit.  At this  stage,  it  is
        suffice to state that  plaintiff  no.2  is  in  possession  of  the
        property who has filed an affidavit stating that she  is  a  tenant
        under plaintiff no.1 where as defendants have produced documents to
        show that she is tenant under them.


              In view of the above, I am of the  considered  opinion   that
        this controversy can be resolved at the final disposal of the  suit
        when parties  lead  their  respective  evidence.   At  this  stage,
        plaintiff no.2 is entitled for  injunction.  Hence  the  point  for
        consideration is answered in favour of plaintiff no.2  only  and  I
        proceed to pass the following:


              I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2
        of CPC is allowed in part.


              Defendants 1 and 2 are restrained by an order  of  ad-interim
        temporary injunction from interfering with the peaceful  possession
        and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by plaintiff no.2  till
        disposal of the suit.”


6.    Aggrieved by the said order the defendants preferred an appeal  before
the High Court being MFA No.524  of  2003.   Ld.  Single  Judge  instead  of
considering the legality and propriety of the interim injunction granted  by
the Civil Judge proceeded to  decide  the  effect  of  Section  53A  of  the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882.  The Ld. Single Judge is of  the  view  that
though the plaintiff is ready  and  willing  to  perform  her  part  of  the
contract, the fact that suit for bare injunction is  filed  without  seeking
leave under Order 2 rule 2 CPC reserving their right to sue  for  any  other
relief.  According to Ld.  Single  Judge  in  the  light  of  this,  if  the
respondent is barred from claiming any relief of specific  performance,  the
incidental relief of injunction would be unavailable to the respondents.
7.    We have heard learned counsel  appearing  for  the  parties.   In  our
considered opinion, the learned single  judge  has  completely  misconstrued
the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and has committed serious  error
in deciding the scope of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act,  1882  and
Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.    As noticed above the Civil  Judge  while  granting
ad-interim  injunction  very  categorically  observed  in  the  order   that
respective rights of the parties shall be  decided  at  the  time  of  final
disposal of the suit.  The very fact that Plaintiff No.2  is  in  possession
of the  property  as  a  tenant  under  Plaintiff  No.1  and  possession  of
Plaintiff  No.2  was  not  denied,  the  interim  protection  was  given  to
Plaintiff No.2 against the threatened action of the defendants to evict  her
without following the due process of law.  In our  considered  opinion,  the
order passed by the learned single judge cannot be sustained in law.
8.    For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this  appeal  and  set  aside  the
order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid appeal arising  out  of  the
order of injunction.
9.    However, before parting with the order we are of the view  that  since
the suit is pending for a long time the trial court shall hear  and  dispose
of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of  copy
of this order.  It goes without saying that the trial  court  shall  not  be
influenced by any of the  observation  made  in  the  order  passed  by  the
appellate court as also by this court and the suit shall be decided  on  its
own merits.


                                                              ………………………………J.
                                                     (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)




                                                              ………………………………J.
                                                                (M.Y. EQBAL)
New Delhi
February 7, 2013


-----------------------
7


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.