ACQUA BOREWELL PVT. LTD. versus SWAYAM PRABHA & OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 17-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
ACQUA BOREWELL PVT. LTD.
v.
SWAYAM PRABHA & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6779-6780 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Injunction: Grant of – Impleading of necessary parties –
Requirement of – On facts, the High Court granted injunction for
some of the suit properties, in which the  appellants-third parties
have right, title or interest on the basis of the development agreement
– Appellants neither impleaded nor given an opportunity of being
heard – Application to implead the appellants as necessary and
proper parties not disposed of – Sustainability of – Held: Not
sustainable – Before granting any injunction with respect to the
properties in which the appellants-third parties are claiming right,
title or interest on the basis of the development agreements or
otherwise they ought to have been given an opportunity of being
heard – No injunction could have been granted against them without
impleading them as party-defendants in the suit and thereafter
without giving them an opportunity of being heard – Trial court
rightly rejected the injunction application holding that some of the
properties were evidently owned by the firms/trusts/companies which
were not made parties to the suit – Thus, the order passed by the
High Court granting injunction with respect to 1/7th share in the
total plaint schedule properties is set aside – Necessary parties –
Impleadment.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.6779-
6780 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2020 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in M.F.A. No.1638 of 2020 and M.F.A.
No.1849 of 2020 (CPC).
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6787-6788, 6789-6790, 6791-6792, 6793-6794,
6781-6782, 6785-6786 and 6783-6784 of 2021.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 408
408
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Swathi
Sukumar, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Sajal Jain, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Saurabh Kansal, Ms. Ashu Chaudhary, Deepak Goel, Ajesh
Shankar Kumar, Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Pallavi Sengupta, Prateek Yadav,
Ms. Aakriti Priya, Mohammed Shahrukh, Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
dated 22.09.2020 in M.F.A. No. 1638/2020 and M.F.A. No. 1849/2020
(CPC), by which the High Court has allowed the aforesaid appeals in
part and has modified the interim injunction granted by the learned XIV
Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, CCH 28 (hereinafter referred to
as the learned ‘trial Court’) passed in IA Nos. 1, 18, 22 and 24 in O.S.
No. 4709/2019 and restricted the injunction against alienation to the extent
of 1/7th share in the total plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the
case, the third parties have preferred the present appeals.
2. That respondent nos. 1, 22, 23 and 24 herein have instituted
O.S. No. 4709/2019 before the learned trial Court seeking a declaration
that the plaintiffs and defendants 18 & 19 (respondent nos. 19 & 20
herein) are entitled to their mother Laxmi Devi’s 1/7th share in the total
plaint schedule properties and consequently prayed for a decree for
partition and separate possession. They have also further sought a
declaration that 2015 Settlement Deed is void ab-initio.
2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the plaint schedule
properties consist of number of properties ranging from A1 to A40 in the
said suit. The original plaintiffs filed IA No. 1 in OS No. 4709/2019
seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction qua the suit schedule properties.
The learned trial Court initially granted ex-parte injunction restraining
the defendants in the suit from alienating and creating any charge and
third party interest upon the suit schedule properties to the extent of the
plaintiffs share, till the next date of hearing of the interim injunction
application. That by order dated 26.09.2019, the learned trial Court
dismissed IA No.1 in OS No. 4709/2019 and refused to grant an interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, inter alia, holding that some of the
ACQUA BOREWELL PVT. LTD.  v. SWAYAM PRABHA &
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
suit schedule properties are evidently owned by the firms/trusts/
companies which entities have not been made parties to the suit.
2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.