GAURAV RAJESHBHAI DESAI AND OTHERS v. YAGYANARAYAN PRABHUNATH MISHRA AND OTHERS
Equity Demands Parity in Interim Injunctions; Both Parties Must Be Restrained from Creating Third-Party Rights Pending Adjudication of Competing Property Titles to Prevent Multiplicity of Proceedings.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:8190
Decision Date: 17-02-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Registration Act, 1908; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Equity and Discretionary Relief; Principle of Parity in Interim Orders
- Facts: The Appellants are the owners of agricultural land acquired via a registered Deed of Conveyance in 2014. The property was subject to two registered lease deeds (1968 and 1971) in favor of Respondent No. 1, which the Appellants claimed had either expired by efflux of time or were terminated by notice. Respondent No. 1 filed an earlier suit (Special Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017) seeking specific performance of an unregistered 1994 agreement and obtained an interim injunction restraining the Appellants from creating third-party rights. Subsequently, the Appellants filed their own suit (Special Civil Suit No. 18 of 2023) for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. In the Appellants' suit, the Trial Court rejected their Exhibit-5 application for a temporary injunction to restrain the Respondents from creating third-party rights, despite having previously restrained the Appellants from doing the same.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellants challenged the Trial Court's order dated 3rd May 2023 before the Bombay High Court via an Appeal from Order under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Issue: Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to grant a temporary injunction against the Respondents to maintain status quo and parity, especially when the Appellants were already restrained from creating third-party rights in a cross-suit involving the same property.
- Holding: Yes, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order and granted the injunction. The Respondents are restrained from creating any third-party rights, title, or interest in the suit property pending final disposal.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that equity demands parity in interim protection when both parties assert competing rights over the same immovable property. Allowing one party to alienate the property while restraining the other creates an imbalance and an unwarranted advantage. Citing "Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) v. Baldev Dass", the Court emphasized that status quo should ordinarily be maintained in property disputes to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure the final decree does not become infructuous. Furthermore, the Court held that the Appellants' failure to detail the unregistered 1994 agreement in their plaint did not constitute "deliberate suppression" since they had referenced the pending 2017 suit. The Court also noted that under "Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana", an unregistered document cannot confer proprietary rights in law, and the validity of such an agreement is a matter for trial.
🔒 For Members Only