- Case
- SHRI. NITIN MARUTRAO KALE AND ANOTHER v. SHRI. MANIKRAO BAJIRAO MALGUNDE AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 07-01-2025)
- Law
- Specific Relief Act, Transfer of Property Act, Code of Civil Procedure.
Facts: Two appeals arose from two suits filed by plaintiffs (Appellants) seeking similar reliefs against different sets of defendants (Respondents). The suits concerned portions of land from Gut No. 140, an ancestral Hindu joint family property. The Appellants claimed rights based on "Visar Pavatis" (agreements to sell) executed in 2012, seeking specific performance, execution of sale deeds, and injunctions against the Respondents from creating third-party interests. The Respondents denied the claims, alleging the Appellants were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had filed counterclaims for damages. A key issue was an existing injunction obtained by one Seema Malgunde in a separate suit, which the Respondents argued hindered the sale.
Procedural Posture: The appeals challenged orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baramati, rejecting the Appellants' applications for interim injunctions restraining the Respondents from creating third-party interests, parting with possession, or changing the nature of the suit properties. The appeals were heard together by the High Court.
Issue: Did the Trial Court err in rejecting the Appellants' applications for interim injunctions, considering the "Visar Pavatis," the existing injunction obtained by Seema Malgunde, and the Appellants' alleged lack of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract? Should the High Court interfere with the Trial Court's discretionary decision?
Holding: No, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, dismissing the appeals and refusing to grant interim injunctions.
Reasoning: The High Court found that the Appellants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The Court noted that the "Visar Pavatis" were from 2012, and the Appellants had not taken sufficient steps to complete the transactions despite specific notices from the Respondents. The Court also considered the existing injunction obtained by Seema Malgunde, which, although not directly applicable to the entire Gut No. 140, should have prompted the Appellants to seek clarification if they were genuinely interested in proceeding. The Court emphasized that an appellate court should not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court unless the trial court's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse, or ignored settled principles of law. The High Court concluded that the Trial Court's decision was based on the available material and did not warrant interference. The court also invoked the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that since the suits were pending, it would apply.
