• Legal Armor

Case Analysis : Dalpat Kaur v. Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276

Facts


The appellant had agreed with the respondent to purchase the house of the respondent and also paid some advance, but he could not get the possession. Then the appellant filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed ex-parte and the sale deed was executed by the court. Subsequently, the respondent’s wife filed a suit against the appellant and sought a temporary injunction against dispossession. This was rejected by the court. This order of the lower court was confirmed by the High Court.



Then the appellant filed an execution petition which was allowed by the court, despite the opposition by the respondent. The sons of the petitioner then filed a suit against this as they called this property as joint property and asked for a division of the property. Further requested for an interim injunction, which was rejected by both lower court and the High Court. Now the respondent filed a fourth suit stating that the appellant was his counsel and he had played fraud with him, thus claiming an interim injunction from dispossession. The trial court rejected the application but the High Court allowed the application and granted an interim injunction, thus restraining the appellants from taking possession. So, an appeal was given to the Supreme Court.


Issue


Whether the High Court was right in granting ad- interim injunction to the respondent?


The Question of law here is Order 39 rule 1(c) of The Civil Procedure Code. It states that an Injunction may be granted wherein a suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in the suit.


Observations Made By The Supreme Court

The appellant had agreed with the respondent to purchase the house of the respondent and also paid some advance, but he could not get the possession. Then the appellant filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed ex-parte and the sale deed was executed by the court. Subsequently, the respondent’s wife filed a suit against the appellant and sought a temporary injunction against dispossession. This was rejected by the court. This order of the lower court was confirmed by the High Court.


Then the appellant filed an execution petition which was allowed by the court, despite the opposition by the respondent. The sons of the petitioner then filed a suit against this as they called this property as joint property and asked for a division of the property. Further requested for an interim injunction, which was rejected by both lower court and the High Court. Now the respondent filed a fourth suit stating that the appellant was his counsel and he had played fraud with him, thus claiming an interim injunction from dispossession. The trial court rejected the application but the High Court allowed the application and granted an interim injunction, thus restraining the appellants from taking possession. So, this appeal is in the Supreme Court.


Decision


However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court without averting any material evidence like any act of damage, any alienation made, etc, held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting an injunction, was wrong. So, the appeal was allowed and the order of the High Court was set aside and that of the trial court was confirmed.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kirti Sharma is currently pursuing Law at Galgotias University.

You may contact them at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kirti-sharma-6060a51a0

Edited by: Swathi Ashok Nair

DISCLAIMER BY LEGAL ARMOR

We at Legal Armor do not endorse the Authors' views and are in no way responsible for the said views. We are just publishing the Write-ups as blogs with just light editing, and are in no way responsible for any legal claims. Legal Armor shall not be liable for any plagiarized content.

©2020 by Legal Armor. Proudly created with Wix.com