Bhabani Sen @ Bhabani Kumari Sen Vs Chandrasekhar Das

for declaration of one Registered Gift Deed and three Sale Deeds as void, inoperative along with decree for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

¶29

4 . The fact remains that the afore-stated Gift Deed and three Sale

¶30

Deeds executed in the year 2022 and 2023 in favour of the sole defendant (present Opposite Party) were sought to be declared as void and inoperative by the plaintiff on the ground of fraud committed upon her. Her case is that she being the owner of the properties covered under such Registered Deeds was misrepresented to sign on some blank papers at the persuasion of one lawyer and she could not be aware of the fact of presentation of the same before the Registering Authority. The plaintiff have also taken some other grounds in support of her plea to declare those deeds void. In the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC styled as I.A.No.48 of 2024 ( arising out of C.S.No.150/2010 of 2024-I), the plaintiff sought for temporary injunction against the defendant in respect of such properties. The learned trial court in her order dated 20^th May 2024 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of such land scheduled in the plaint. Against the same, the defendant approached the First Appellate

¶31

Page 2 of 10

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶34

Court in FAO No.74 of 2024. The First Appellate Court upon hearing both parties reversed such order of the trial court dated 20^th May 2024 mainly on the ground that the plaintiff fails to make out any prima facie case in her favour and consequently there cannot be any irreparable loss found to the plaintiff. In the opinion of the First Appellate Court, no balance of convenience is leaning in favour of the plaintiff to grant such order of status quo in favour of the plaintiff.

¶35

5 . Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the plaintiff-Petitioner

¶36

submits that when the plaintiff is the seller and sating that fraud has been committed upon her in execution of those documents, the findings of the First Appellate Court contrary to the observations of the trial court are baseless and without any reason.

¶37

6 . Conversely, Mr.Bhokta, learned counsel for the defendantOpposite Party supports the impugned order of the First Appellate Court and submits that the story advanced by the plaintiff to declare such deeds as void is improbable and unbelievable. Without any justification on the part of the plaintiff to remain present before the Registering Authority and without disputing her signature to be not genuine, such plea advanced by the plaintiff against the Registered

¶38

Page 3 of 10

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶41

Deeds cannot be allowed to sustain to grant interim relief in favour of the plaintiff.

¶42

7 . On the backdrop of such rival contentions as advanced by the parties, the present case involving grant of temporary injunction by way of order of status quo is to be looked into in satisfaction of principles settled for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. Those principles, stated as golden principles, are to look for prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In

¶43

Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh , (1992) 1 SCC 719, it is stated that;

¶44

“Undoubtedly, in a suit seeking to set aside the decree, the subject matter in the earlier suit, though became final, the Court would in an appropriate case grant ad interim injunction when the party seeks to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud pleaded in the suit or for want of jurisdiction in the Court which passed the decree. But the Court would be circumspect before granting the injunction and look to the conduct of the party, the probable injuries to either party and whether the plaintiff could be adequately compensated if injunction is refused. This case demonstrates (we are not expressing any opinion on the plea of fraud or their relative merits in the case or the validity of the decree impugned), suffice to state that the conduct of the respondent militates against the bona fides. At present there is a sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the first appellant. If ultimately the respondent succeeds at the trial, they can be adequately compensated

¶45

Page 4 of 10

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶48

by awarding damages for use and occupation from the date of dispossession till date of restitution. Repeatedly the civil court and the High Court refused injunction pending proceedings. For any acts of damage, if attempted to be made, to the property, or done, appropriate direction could be taken in the suit. If any alienation is made it would be subject to doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. xx.. xx.. xx.. The phrases “prima facie case”, “balance of convenience” and “irreparable loss” are not rhetoric phrases for incantation, but words of width and elasticity, to meet myriad situations presented by men's ingenuity in given facts and circumstances, but always is hedged with sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice. The facts are eloquent and speak for themselves. It is well nigh impossible to find from facts prima facie case and balance of convenience. The respondents can be adequately compensated on their success.”

¶49

8 . Further, in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. , 1990 Supp

¶50

SCC 727, it has been held as follows:-

¶51

“ 9. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated

¶52

“...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in

¶53

Page 5 of 10

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶56

damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the ‘balance of convenience’ lies.”

¶57

The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted.

¶58

xx.. xx.. xx..

¶59

14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had

¶60

Page 6 of 10

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶63

considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph [(1960) 3 SCR 713 : AIR 1960 SC 1156] : (SCR 721)

¶64

“... These principles are well established, but as has been observed by Viscount Simon in Charles Osenton & Co. v. Jhanaton [1942 AC 130] ‘...the law as to the reversal by a court of appeal of an order made by a judge below in the exercise of his discretion is well established, and any difficulty that arises is due only to the application of well settled principles in an individual case’.”

¶65

The appellate judgment does not seem to defer to this principle.”

¶66

9 . In Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary v. Sitaram Bhalchandra

¶67

Sukhtankar , (1983) 4 SCC 31, it has been observed that, “When an interim injunction is sought, the court may have to examine whether the party seeking the assistance of the court was at any time in lawful possession of the property and if it is so established one would prima facie ask the other side contesting the suit to show how the plaintiffs were dispossessed? We pin-pointed this question and heard the submission. We refrain from discussing the evidence and recording our conclusions because evidence is still to be led and the contentions and disputes have to be examined in depth and any expression of

¶68

Page 7 of 10

¶69

Signature Not Verified

¶70

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶71

opinion by this court may prejudice one or the other party in having a fair trial and uninhibited decision. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are satisfied that this is not a case in which interim injunction could be refused. Similarly we are of the opinion that if respondents are allowed to put up construction by the use of the FSI for the whole of the land including the land involved in dispute, the situation may become irreversible by the time the dispute is decided and would preclude fair and just decision of the matter. If on the contrary injunction is granted as prayed for the respondents are not likely to be inconvenienced because they are in possession of about 9000 sq metres of land on which they can put up construction .”

¶72

10 . To find out prima facie case what is to be seen that whether the plaintiff has a arguable case in support of her pleadings. In this regard, looking to the facts of the case at hand, it is seen that the plaintiff is admittedly the seller in respect of the Registered Sale Deeds and donor in respect of the Registered Gift Deeds. All these four deeds were registered in the year 2022 and 2023 within a gap of nearly three months, executed in favour of sole defendant. The plaintiff without any unreasonable delay on her part approached the Court to declare those deeds as void and inoperative on the ground of fraud played

¶73

Page 8 of 10

¶74

Signature Not Verified

¶75

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶76

upon her. When vendor/donor herself comes to say that such deeds executed by her in favour of the defendant have been obtained by playing fraud on her, that too without any unreasonable delay, whatever her grounds may be in the plaint that are required to be looked into at the time of final decision of the suit, the same cannot be said as without any arguable point at the preliminary stage before analyzing the merits of the suit, to decide the question of interim relief. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, such findings of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff did not have any prima facie case is found without merit. The pleadings of the plaintiff made in the plaint do certainly, in the opinion in this Court, make out a prima facie case in her favour.

¶77

11 . So far as looking to the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, it is true that the property in question involved in the lis needs to be protected during pendency of the suit. If the sale deeds and gift deed would be declared as void and inoperative at the end of the trial, then the same will certainly return to the plaintiff. If in the meantime the nature and character of such properties would be changed by action of the rival party, then the loss would be suffered by the plaintiff and not the defendant. At the same time it is true that in the

¶78

Page 9 of 10

¶79

Signature Not Verified

¶80

Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cutt ack Date: 15-Sep-2025 14:45:48

¶81

sale deeds, as per their recitals, consideration amount has been paid by the defendant and if it is assumed that he for the reason of paying such amount in favour of the plaintiff should enjoy the right and possession over the property, then also his right would not be violated by grant of order of status quo. But, in case the nature and character of the property is changed or it is alienated further in favour of any third party, then the purpose of the suit would be frustrated. Thus, the balance of convenience leans in favour of the plaintiff she being the admitted vendor of the properties. Therefore, in such circumstances, it would be better to enforce the order of status quo as granted by the trial court till disposal of the suit.

¶82

12 . In view of the discussions made above, the CMP is allowed.

¶83

The impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court dated 11^th February 2025 under Annexure-6 is reversed restoring the order of the trial court dated 20^th May 2024 under Annexure-5.

¶84

( B.P. Routray) Judge

¶85

C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary

¶86

Page 10 of 10

Bhabani Sen @ Bhabani Kumari Sen v. Chandrasekhar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabani Sen @ Bhabani Kumari Sen v. Chandrasekhar Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritanjali Giri@Paul Vs State of Odisha

Kumudini Bagarty Vs Collector,-C-Chairm

Manoranjan Bhuyan Vs Kalpana Bewa @ Bhuyan

Sanjaya Ku.Panigrahi Vs State

Sanjaya Kumar Bal Vs State of Orissa

Sailaja Sankar Kanungo Vs State of Orissa