LexBENGAL AMBUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. versus PRAMILA SANFUI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 428 A BENGAL AM BUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. B v. PRAMILASANFUIAND ORS. SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 (Civil Appeal Nos. 7209-7210 of 2015) [T. S. THAKUR, V. GOPALA GOWDA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- 0. XXXIX, rr.1and2- C Temporary or permanent injunction can be granted only against the parties to a suit- Intermediary right holder under the 1953 Act - Bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with property of such intermediary - Whether order of temporary injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge, in D respect of the suit property without impleading the vendors and the appellant Housing Board, which had acquired the right, title, interest upon the same can be enforced against them through thejurisdictional police as has been granted by the Subordinate Judge, though the sale deed in favour of E the Board is not challenged by the plaintiffs-respondents and the said order can be enforced against the appellants through jurisdictional police - Whether the inclusion of the property of the Housing Board to the suit instituted in the Civil Court by way of an amendment by the plaintiffs-respondents which. F property was conferred upon the legal heirs of late 'G' as intermediary right holder u/s. 6 of the 1953 Act and the institution of suit for partition by the contesting respondents is barred by the provisions of ss.57-B(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act of 1953 - Held: The plaintiffs-respondents did not have G any right to get the said land included as part of the suit schedule properties for partition, and the Subordinate Judge erred in allowing the application to amend the suit schedule to include the property in question - The appellants were not parties to the suit, and the suit had abated as against late H 428 BENGAL AM BUJA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. 429 PRAM I LA SAN FU I AND ORS. 'G' - The Subordinate Judge erred in passing order of A temporary injunction u/O.XXXIX, rr. 1 and 2 of CPC, in respect of the property in question after it was included to the suit schedule as order of temporary injunction can be granted against only the parties to the suit property- Further, the grant of police protection without impleading the appellants to the B original suit proceedings is also not legally permissible - The original owner in the instant case, late 'G' was an intermediary in khas possession of the land in question in terms of s. 6 of the 1953 Act - Thus, the Subordinate Judge did not have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit with respect c to the said property, in light of the provision of s.57B (2)(a), (b) and (c) of the 1953 Act - Ex parte interim order of temporary injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge in respect of the property in question purchased from the legal heirs of the late 'G' who are declared as intermediaries u/s. 6 D of the 1953 Act and therefore the same are not binding on this appellant as it is not a party to the proceedings and the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the said property, as per s.57 B (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the 1953 Act- Since the interim order of temporary injunction is not binding E on the appellant Housing Board and cannot be operated against them, therefore the question of enforcing the same against the appellant Housing Board or its agents or any person claiming through it, through the jurisdictional police to help the plaintiffs-respondents as has been granted by F the Subordinate Judge at the request of the plaintiffs- respondents, does not arise -Appeals of appellant Housing Board allowed - West Bengal Estates Acquisition, Act 1953 -ss.57-B(2)(a),(b) and (c). West Bengal Government Employees (Food and G Supplies) Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Sulekha Pal (Dey) & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 253 : 2003 (3) SCR 626; Bengal Ambuja Housing Development Limited & Anr. .v. Pramila Sanfui & H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 15S.C.R. A Ors., Kumaran Silk Trade (P.) Ltd. v. Devendra & Ors. (2007) 12 sec 549 : 2001 (11) SCR 752; Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753; Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa (2012) 12 SCC 378: 2012 (8) SCR 1089; B M.N Haider v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (2004) 13 SCC 677; Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 : 1979 (3) SCR 1014; Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya C Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 29: 2011 (5) SCR 77 - referr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.