2013 (1) TMI 927 - SC - Indian Laws

Interim Relief under Specific Relief Act - Execution of Power of Attorney - The plaintiffs claim that they along with deceased were residing in Suit flat and they were also in occupation of an suit office from where the first plaintiff was carrying on her profession of advocate and solicitors .The suit flat was gifted in favor of the first plaintiff whereas a general power of attorney was executed in favor of the first plaintiff. Both the properties were self-acquired properties of deceased. Whether Interim relief for Possession against Power of Attorney can be provided to Plaintiffs - HELD THAT - there were inconsistencies and improbabilities in the case of the plaintiffs. Accordingly the interim relief of direction to be put back in possession as claimed by the plaintiffs was declined. The version of the plaintiffs that the visiting card showing her office at Ashoka Centre was a forged document and also the claim that the plaintiff had used the said premises temporarily as the suit office was under renovation was accepted by the learned Appellate Court as sufficient explanation to counter the stand taken by the defendants. On the aforesaid basis the order of the learned Trial Judge was found fit for reversal and refusal of interim relief to the plaintiffs was held to be unjustified. Accordingly interim relief(s) was granted in the appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the Appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to handover possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the Court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction. Considering all the relevant facts We find that the learned Appellate Bench of the High Court was not correct in interfering with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge we wish to make it clear that our aforesaid conclusion is not an expression of our opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Our disagreement with the view of the Division Bench is purely on the ground that the manner of exercise of the appellate power is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Wander Ltd. 1990 (4) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT . Accordingly we set aside the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court and while restoring the order dated 13.04.2012 of the learned Trial Judge we request the learned Trial Judge or such other court to which the case may in the mean time have been transferred to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as its calendar would permit with the expectation that the same will be possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the above.

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of interim relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
2. Possession and dispossession of the suit properties.
3. Evaluation of documentary evidence by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
4. Principles governing the grant of mandatory interim injunctions.
5. Appellate Court's interference with the Trial Court's discretionary order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Interim Relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:
The plaintiffs filed Suit No. 27 of 2012 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking immediate remedy for alleged illegal dispossession from the suit properties. The Trial Court initially refused interim relief to the plaintiffs. However, the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court reversed this decision, granting interim relief and directing the Receiver to hand over possession to the plaintiffs.

2. Possession and Dispossession of the Suit Properties:
The plaintiffs claimed that they were residing in the suit flat and using the suit office until the death of Ibrahim Khan. They alleged that the defendants forcibly took possession of these properties after Ibrahim Khan's death. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had separated from Ibrahim Khan in 2009 and were not in possession of the suit properties at the relevant time. The Trial Court found inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' narrative, while the Appellate Court found the plaintiffs' evidence more convincing.

3. Evaluation of Documentary Evidence by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court:
Both courts considered extensive documentary evidence. The Trial Court noted contradictions in the plaintiffs' case, such as the presence of defendant No. 1 in Bhagalpur during the alleged dispossession and discrepancies in the plaintiffs' accounts from neighbors and domestic aid. The Appellate Court, however, relied on documents like invoices for household goods, passports, and bank statements indicating the plaintiffs' possession of the suit flat and office. The Appellate Court found these documents sufficient to establish the plaintiffs' possession and reversed the Trial Court's decision.

4. Principles Governing the Grant of Mandatory Interim Injunctions:
The Supreme Court emphasized that granting mandatory interim relief requires a higher degree of satisfaction than prohibitory injunctions. The principles for such relief, as outlined in Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden, include a strong case for trial, prevention of irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. The Trial Court's refusal of mandatory interim relief was based on doubts about the plaintiffs' entitlement, while the Appellate Court's grant of such relief was seen as an overreach.

5. Appellate Court's Interference with the Trial Court's Discretionary Order:
The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court's discretionary order unless it was palpably incorrect or untenable. The Trial Court's view was considered a possible view based on the evidence. The Appellate Court's substitution of its own discretion was deemed inappropriate, as it did not adhere to the principles established in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court set aside the Appellate Court's order and restored the Trial Court's order, emphasizing that this decision was not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court's order denying interim relief to the plaintiffs and directed the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the main suit within six months. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →