LexLAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI AND ANR. versus E. JAYARAM (D) BY LR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 1 S.C.R. 794 LAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI AND ANR. v. E.JAYARAM (D) BY LR. (Civil Appeal No. 1004 of 2013) FEBRUARY 7, 2013 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 39, rr.1 and 2 - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiff no. 1 claimed ownership C rights in respect of the suit property stating that it had purchased the same from defendant no. 1, and though the sale deed was not registered, the entire sale consideration had been paid to defendant no. 1 - Separate application filed by plaintiffs-appellants u!Or. 39, rr. 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad- D interim relief - Interim injunction granted by trial court - Appeal - High Court instead of considering the legality and propriety of the order of interim injunction, proceeded to decide the effect of s.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Further, taking note of the fact that the suit for bare injunction E was filed without seeking leave u!Or.2, r.2 CPC reserving the right to sue for any other relief, the High Court held that in light of the same if the plaintiffs were barred from claiming any relief of specific performance, the incidental relief of injunction would also be unavailable to them, and thereafter set aside F the order of trial court - Held: High Court completely misconstrued the provisions of Or. 39, rr. 1 and 2 CPC and committed serious error in deciding the scope of s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Or. 2, r. 2 CPC - Trial court while granting ad-interim injunction very categorically G observed in the order that respective rights of the parties shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit - The very fact that plaintiff no. 2 was in possession of the property as a tenant under plaintiff no.1 and possession of plaintiff no.2 was not denied, interim protection was given to plaintiff no.2 against H 794 LAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI AND ANR. v. 795 E.JAYARAM (D) BY LR. the threatened action of the defendants-respondents to evict A her without following the due process of law - Order passed by High Court cannot be sustained in law. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment 8 of the suit property inter-alia pleading that plaintiff no.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property which was purchased from defendant no.1 and that though the sale deed was not registered, the entire sale consideration had been paid to defendant no.1. The plaintiffs-appellants C further filed a separate application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking ad-interim relief restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. The defendant-respondents denied the purchase of suit property by the plaintiff-appellants from defendant- respondent no.1. They pleaded that plaintiff no.1 was a stranger; that defendant no.1 was the owner of the D property and plaintiff no.2 was a tenant under him. E The trial court allowed the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and granted ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful. possession and enjoyment of the suit property by plaintiff no.2 till disposal of the suit. F Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court instead of considering the legality and propriety of the interim injunction granted by the trial court, proceeded to decide the effect of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, G 1882. Further, taking note of the fact that the suit for bare injunction was filed without seeking leave ulOr.2, r.2 CPC reserving the right to sue for any other relief, the High Court held that in light of the same if the plaintiffs were barred from claiming any relief of specific performance, H nl6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A the incidental relief of injunction would also be unavailable to them. The High Court thereafter set aside the order passed by the trial court holding that defendant- respondents were entitled to initiate action for ejectment of the plaintiff-appellants from the suit property. Hence 8 the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The High Court completely misconstrued the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and committed C serious error in deciding the scope of Section 5
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.