MANDALI RANGANNA & ORS. ETC. versus T. RAMACHANDRA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 30-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 264 
y~ 
A 
MANDALI RANGANNA & ORS. ETC. 
V. 
T. RAMACHANDRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3128-29 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 30, 2008 
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
c 
Or. 39 rr. 1 and 2 - Temporary injunction/interim order -
Suit for declaration and possession of suit properties -
Applications for interim injunction and orders to restrain 
defendants from raising any construction on or creating any 
third party interests in suit property - Held: Grant of injunction 
D is an equitable relief - Besides existence of basic elements 
in relation to granting injunction, conduct of parties must also 
be taken into consideration - On facts, prima facie, defendants 
had been in possession of suit properties for a long time and 
plaintiffs never exercised any act of possession -
E Constructions involving crores of rupees cannot be directed 
to be stopped - Therefore, in the interest of justice defendants 
are allowed to carry out the constructions which would be 
subject to the ultimate decision of the suit - Any third party 
interests, if created, would also be subject to the decision of 
.,. 
F the suit - Equity. 
The appellants filed a suit for declaration that the suit 
properties were the joint family properties of the parties. 
It was stated that the partition which had taken place 
G earlier between the parties was only a partial one. A 
preliminary decree for partition and possession of suit 
I' 
property according to the share of the parties was prayed 
for. A consequential decree for permanent injunction 
restraining the defendant-respondents from alienating the 
H 
264 
MANDALI RANGANNA & ORS. ETC. v. 
265 
~-) 
T. RAMACHANDRA & ORS. 
suit properties or raising any constructions thereon was A 
also sought. The stand of the defendants was that the 
properties had already been partitioned as far back as the 
year 1924 and they were enjoying their rights over their 
~· 
respective shares uninterruptedly since then. During the 
pendency of the suit the defendants-respondents B 
executed a registered deed of lease on 15.12.2004 in 
favour of respondent no. 12. The plaintiffs filed an 
application for interim injunction against the defendants 
and respondent no.12 restraining them from digging pits, c 
putting up construction etc. on the suit land. They filed 
another application restraining the defendants from 
changing the nature of the property or transferring or 
alienating any right therein in favour of third parties. The 
trial court granted the prayer in both the applications. D 
~ 
However, the High Court allowing the appeal of the 
· defendants, set aside the orders of the trial court and 
ordered that any construction put up in the suit properties 
and any alienation thereof and creation of any interests 
therein by the defendants would be subject to. the E 
decision of the suit. 
In the instant appeals filed by the plaintiffs, it was 
,, 
contended for the appellants, inter alia, that the property 
having not been partitioned fully and possession of a co-
F 
~ owner being possession of the other co-owners also, 
creation of third party interests in a situation of this nature 
or allowing parties to carry on constructions would cause 
irreparable loss to the appellants and the Court should 
direct stoppage of such construction. 
G 
.., 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
/ 
HELD: 1.1 It is true that grant or refusal of injunction 
has serious consequence depending upon the nature 
. thereof, and the courts dealing with such matters must H 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
y-, -, 
A make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties; 
, 
for the said purpose, application of mind on the part of 
the courts is imperative, and pleas raised by the parties 
must be determined objectively. However, grant of 
injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept 
B quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the 
properties exclusively, ordinarily, would not be entitled to 
an order of injunction. The court will not interfere only 
because the property is a very valuable one. [para 18) [275-
c 
C-E] 
1.2 While considering an application for grant of 
injunction, the court will not only take into consideration 
the basic elements in relation thereto, viz., existence of a 
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable 
D injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of 
the parties. [para 18) [275-B-C] 
M. Gurudas and Ot

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