Utt. HC: Conditional Liberty Must Override Statutory Embargo Under NDPS Act  ||  Utt. HC: While Exercising Inherent Jurisdiction, HC Does Not Function As Court of Appeal or Revision  ||  Pat. HC: Alcohol Consumption Cannot be Conclusively Proved Through Breath Analyzer Report  ||  Ker. HC: Emp. Messaging in Pvt. Whatsapp Group About Safety of Company Doesn’t Attract Disc. Proc.  ||  Ker. HC: Circular Issued to Enable Service of Notice, Summons Through E-Post in Trivandrum  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Denied Over Death of Man Not Proved to be Bonafide Passenger  ||  Madras HC: Public Service is Being Performed by Lawyers, They Cannot be Denied Funds  ||  Gau. HC: Compensation Awarded to Wife of Deceased Driver Enhanced  ||  Bom. HC: Bar Council of Mah. & Goa Directed to Take Action Against Lawyer Who Appeared Without Band  ||  Delhi High Court: Bail Granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Liquor Policy Scam Case    

Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi - (Supreme Court) (23 Sep 2022)

A relief of permanent injunction cannot be sought on the basis of an unregistered document

MANU/SC/1241/2022

Property

The Respondent – original Plaintiff instituted Original Suit before the learned trial Court for permanent injunction only. The said suit was filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23rd March, 1996. The original Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from disturbing her possession in the suit property. In the said suit, the Appellant herein – original defendant filed a counter-claim seeking the decree of possession. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the original Plaintiff and refused to grant permanent injunction and allowed the counter-claim of the Defendant on the ground that original plaintiff could not prove the agreement to sell dated 23rd March, 1996 and that the original plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property since 8th July, 1997.

The original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The learned first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and consequently decreed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The learned first appellate Court also dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court has been confirmed by the High Court.

The Plaintiff might not succeed in getting the relief of specific performance of such agreement to sell as the same was unregistered, the Plaintiff filed a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction only. It may be true that in a given case, an unregistered document can be used and/or considered for collateral purpose. However, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot get the relief indirectly which otherwise he/she cannot get in a suit for substantive relief, namely, in the present case the relief for specific performance. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot get the relief even for permanent injunction on the basis of such an unregistered document/agreement to sell, more particularly when the defendant specifically filed the counter-claim for getting back the possession which was allowed by the learned trial Court.

Both, the learned first appellate Court and the High Court have committed a grave error in passing a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff as against the defendant and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the original defendant. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing Second Appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the original plaintiff and dismissing the counter-claim of the defendant are quashed. Appeal allowed.

Tags : INJUNCTION   POSSESSION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved