Appeal against an interim order of temporary injunction in a suit for family arrangement. The High Court found no arbitrary or perverse exercise of discretion by the trial court and dismissed the appeal, sustaining the injunction.
The appeal was dismissed; the Notice of Motion was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/4
app-423-15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J.
APPEAL NO.423 OF 2015
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.359 OF 2013 IN
SUIT NO.137 OF 2013 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.375 OF 2015
Mr.Hansraj Ramji Chheda ...Appellant v/s. Mr.Gangji Ramji Chheda & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Dineshkumar A.Dubey for the Appellant.
CORAM : A.S.OKA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 19 JULY 2016
P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-the original
first Defendant. The order under challenge is an interim order of temporary injunction, which is to operate till the disposal of the suit.
their father and the father made a bequest in respect of the said flat under
his last Will jointly to the Plaintiff and the first Defendant. The case of the
1/4
Uday.P.Kambli
2/4
app-423-15.doc
Plaintiff is that they purchased another flat in Vile Parle bearing Flat No.302, Lily Kunj, Plot No.420, Navin P.Thakkar Marg, Vile Parle, Mumbai. The case of the Plaintiff is that both the flats are jointly owned by the brothers and there was a family arrangement between them. According to the Plaintiff, the family arrangement was that both the brothers should own one flat and release the other flat. It is alleged that the Plaintiff released his share in the flat at Walkeshwar by a registered Release Deed, but the first Defendant has not released the share in the Vile Parle flat. Therefore, a substantive relief is claimed in the suit for a decree directing the first Defendant to execute the deed of release in respect of the flat at Vile Parle. In the alternative, there is a prayer for cancellation of Deed of Release dated 3 July 2006. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge granted temporary injunction restraining the Appellant-Defendant from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff over the flat at Vile Parle. Learned single Judge granted the temporary injunction restraining the Appellant from creating any third party rights and from parting with possession of the flat at Walkeshwar.
is that the Appellant is the exclusive owner of the flat at Walkeshwar and therefore, there was no occasion to grant temporary injunction in respect of
2/4
Uday.P.Kambli
3/4
app-423-15.doc
the said flat. His submission is that the relief claimed is essentially in respect of the flat at Vile Parle and therefore, the order of injunction in respect of the flat at Walkeshwar is completely illegal.
his name. There is a prima facie finding recorded by the learned single Judge that the first Defendant could not place on record any material to
3/4
Uday.P.Kambli
4/4
app-423-15.doc
show that the entire consideration in respect of the Walkeshwar flat is paid by him. The Plaintiff has made a prayer in the alternative for the cancellation of Deed of Release in respect of Walkeshwar flat.
survive and the same is disposed of.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
1 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727
4/4
Uday.P.Kambli
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the single Judge's discretionary order granting a temporary injunction in a suit for family arrangement and release deed.
Whether the single Judge exercised its discretion arbitrarily or perversely in restraining the defendant from disturbing possession during the suit pendency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd.Explained¶40
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727 · Who else cites this
Mr. Hansraj Ramji Chheda
Mr. Gangji Ramji Chheda
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
