2007 (12) TMI 513 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the agreement for sale dated 23.10.1969.
2. Possession and ownership of the suit land.
3. Grant of interim injunction.
4. Application of the principles of res judicata.

Summary:

Validity of the Agreement for Sale:
The appellants contended that the agreement for sale dated 23.10.1969 is a forged document and void as the first appellant was a minor at the time of execution. The respondents claimed that they paid Rs. 80,000 out of the Rs. 90,000 consideration and were put in possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Possession and Ownership of the Suit Land:
The appellants filed Suit No. 4962 of 2006 in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents from creating any right over the suit land based on revenue entries and from interfering with their possession. The City Civil Court refused to grant an injunction, noting that the plaintiffs had not sought cancellation of the agreement for sale and had not established a prima facie case.

Grant of Interim Injunction:
The appellants' application for interim relief was rejected by the City Civil Court, which held that the earlier order dated 13.10.2006 had become final. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the appellants needed to challenge the agreement for sale to succeed. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 2.2.2007, directed the City Civil Court to dispose of the Chamber Summons without being influenced by the High Court's observations. The application for amendment was allowed, but the subsequent notice of motion for an injunction was dismissed.

Application of the Principles of Res Judicata:
The Supreme Court noted that the principles of res judicata apply at different stages of the same proceedings. The appellants had withdrawn their appeal without reserving the liberty to move for an injunction again, which attracted the principles of res judicata. The Court observed that the plaintiffs had not brought any new circumstances warranting the grant of an injunction and that the maintainability of the suit itself did not give rise to a triable issue.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court requested the City Civil Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six weeks, and directed the parties to cooperate for early disposal. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 25,000.