Bombay High Court (N.J. Jamadar, J.; orders dated 10 February 2025) dismisses two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Atul Madhukar Rane, Defendant No.3, against the learned District Judge, Solapur's orders in Misc. Civil Appeal Nos.7 and 18 of 2024, both arising from the trial Court's order dated 19 January 2024 in Regular Civil Suit No.896 of 2023 granting temporary injunction. Facts: the Plaintiff (Ningayya Basayya Swami) acquired the suit land in 2004 under a registered Sale Deed in the name of his then two-year-old son (Defendant No.1); after suffering a stroke in 2021, he alleged Defendant Nos.1 and 2 deleted his name from the record of rights and sold the land to Defendant No.3 under a registered Sale Deed dated 21 December 2021, despite the Plaintiff's public notice of 7 December 2021 and his objection notice of 11 December 2021; Defendant No.3 thereafter obtained the District Collector's permission (14 February 2023) to excavate minerals, and the suit was instituted in August 2023. Holdings: both courts below correctly found a strong prima facie case for the Plaintiff; the sequence of events casts on Defendant No.3 an insuperable prima facie impediment to proving he was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice; the District Judge correctly modified the injunction to restrain Defendant No.3 from excavating minerals or changing the nature of the suit property, since excavation would cause irretrievable damage and threaten the land's identity and character as agricultural land, whereas a mere restraint on alienation risked irreparable loss to the Plaintiff; balance of convenience and irreparable loss firmly tilt in favour of the Plaintiff, any computable monetary loss being Defendant No.3's. The contention that the injunction infringed Defendant No.3's rights of ownership and livelihood was rejected. Writ Petitions dismissed; Rule discharged; no costs; prayer for continuation of interim stay rejected.
