2011 (5) TMI 1151 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the mandatory interim relief granted by the Division Bench.
2. Appropriateness of the Single Judge's discretion in granting limited interim relief.
3. Examination of family settlement and contributions to the property purchase.
4. Determination of the correct interlocutory arrangement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Mandatory Interim Relief Granted by the Division Bench:
The appeal challenges the Division Bench's judgment, which granted full interim relief to Respondent No. 1, making the Notice of Motion absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b), and (c). The Appellants argued that the Division Bench's order amounted to granting a decree at the interlocutory stage, which was not justified. The Supreme Court noted that the Division Bench was persuaded by the fact that the conveyance of the property was in the name of the Respondent and that the Powers of Attorney had been revoked. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the learned Single Judge had already considered these factors and exercised discretion appropriately by granting limited relief. The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench's interference was not necessary and set aside its order, restoring the order of the learned Single Judge.

2. Appropriateness of the Single Judge's Discretion in Granting Limited Interim Relief:
The learned Single Judge granted limited interim relief, allowing the development and construction work to continue while ensuring that the sale proceeds were deposited in the joint bank account and used only for paying off liabilities related to the property. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the learned Single Judge had considered all relevant aspects and provided a well-reasoned order. The Supreme Court highlighted that the learned Single Judge's order was in the interest of both parties and the flat purchasers, and it did not arbitrarily or perversely exercise discretion.

3. Examination of Family Settlement and Contributions to the Property Purchase:
The dispute centered around the rights to a property being developed, with Respondent No. 1 claiming exclusive ownership and the Appellants disputing this claim. The Appellants contended that the property was purchased with significant contributions from Appellant No. 1 and that a family settlement had taken place, which was supported by their sisters. The Supreme Court noted that these claims required examination on evidence and could not be conclusively determined at the interlocutory stage. The learned Single Judge had acknowledged the need to examine these claims and granted limited relief accordingly.

4. Determination of the Correct Interlocutory Arrangement:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the correct interlocutory arrangement should balance the interests of both parties and preserve the status quo until the trial. The learned Single Judge's order allowed the development to continue while ensuring that the sale proceeds were used for property-related liabilities. The Supreme Court found this arrangement reasonable and justified, as it did not preclude the Appellants from establishing their claims at trial. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for granting interim mandatory injunctions, emphasizing that such injunctions should be granted only in exceptional cases where the status quo has been altered, and the interests of justice demand restoration.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the order of the learned Single Judge. The Court clarified that it had not made any observations on the merits of the rival claims and confined itself to the interlocutory arrangement. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.