9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Suit for specific performance and temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Non-registration of agreement to sale and subsequent sale deed. 3. Prima facie case and injunction against subsequent purchaser. 4. Legal interpretation of Section 17 of Gujarat Act No. VII of 1982 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 5. Suit maintainability against subsequent purchaser based on prior purchaser's claim for specific performance. 6. Consideration of relevant documents for establishing prima facie case. Analysis: The judgment by the Gujarat High Court involves a suit for specific performance and a temporary injunction sought by the appellants plaintiffs. The trial Court initially granted an ex parte injunction but later found that the agreement to sale was not registered as required by law, leading to a denial of the injunction. The trial Court also held that since the suit included a prayer to set aside a subsequent sale deed, no relief could be granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and that granting the injunction would cause irreparable loss to subsequent purchasers. During the Appeal From Order hearing, the appellants' counsel cited a Division Bench decision that clarified the non-registration of the agreement to sale under Section 17 of the Gujarat Act No. VII of 1982. The Court held that the trial Court erred in not considering this legal position and in denying the injunction based on non-registration. Additionally, the Court referenced a 1954 Supreme Court decision to support the maintainability of a suit for specific performance against both the vendor and subsequent purchaser, dismissing the trial Court's reasoning on this point. The respondents argued that there was a strong prima facie case in their favor based on certain documents. The Court noted that the trial Court's findings were based on incorrect legal premises and failed to consider crucial documents. As a result, the Court set aside the trial Court's judgment and directed the matter to be remanded to another Civil Judge for proper consideration of the relevant documents to establish a prima facie case. Ultimately, the Appeal From Order was allowed, the trial Court's judgment was quashed, and the matter was remanded for further consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the law and considering all relevant documents in determining the prima facie case.
|
