1986 (4) TMI 370 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the oral agreement for the transfer of the suit shop.
2. Determination of the plaintiff's role in the business (proprietor vs. manager).
3. Impact of the Small Cause Court's order on the current proceedings.
4. Entitlement to interim relief and possession of the suit shop.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Oral Agreement for the Transfer of the Suit Shop:
The plaintiff contended that he acquired the suit shop from defendant 1 in December 1981 for Rs. 20,000 under an oral agreement, and began operating the business from January 1982. The plaintiff supported his claim with evidence such as bills, vouchers, and receipts (Exs. 18/1 to 18/19), showing purchases and business activities in his name. The court found that defendant 1's failure to produce any written agreement or receipt for the Rs. 20,000 received, along with keeping the licenses in his name, was an attempt to take unfair advantage of the lack of documentation.

2. Determination of the Plaintiff's Role in the Business (Proprietor vs. Manager):
The primary dispute was whether the plaintiff was running the business as a proprietor or as a manager for defendant 1. The plaintiff produced substantial documentary evidence indicating his proprietorship, including a membership receipt from the Ahmedabad Hotel Owners Association and affidavits from shopkeepers. Conversely, defendant 1 failed to provide cogent evidence, such as a pay register, to substantiate his claim that the plaintiff was merely a manager. The court found the plaintiff's evidence more credible and rejected defendant 1's argument based on the plaintiff's bank passbook, which listed his occupation as "service."

3. Impact of the Small Cause Court's Order on the Current Proceedings:
The trial court had vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction on the grounds that it conflicted with a Small Cause Court order directing possession of the suit shop to a Receiver in a suit between defendant 1 and defendant 6. The High Court held that the plaintiff, not being a party to that suit, was not bound by the Small Cause Court's order. The trial court should have granted the interim relief based on the merits of the present case, without being influenced by the other court's order.

4. Entitlement to Interim Relief and Possession of the Suit Shop:
The High Court criticized the trial court for vacating the interim injunction and emphasized that the court must consider all evidence, not just documentary statements, to determine actual possession. The court concluded that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of lawful possession and forceful dispossession by defendant 1. The plaintiff's possession was confirmed by the restoration of furniture and other articles through a court order in criminal proceedings. The High Court directed the Receiver to hand over possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff, despite the lack of a specific prayer for possession in the interim relief application, recognizing the plaintiff's right to possession as custodia legis.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, restoring the ex parte interim injunction and directing the Receiver to hand over possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff. The court granted a stay on the operation of its order for three weeks to allow the respondents to seek further legal recourse. No order as to costs was made.