Appellate Overreach: High Court Sets Aside Injunction in Property Dispute.


09 June 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

In a significant ruling, the High Court recently intervened in a long-standing property dispute, overturning an appellate court's decision that had granted a temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. The High Court found that the District Judge, Satara, had exceeded the permissible limits of appellate interference in a discretionary order, effectively constructing a new case for the plaintiffs that lacked foundational pleadings.

The case revolves around a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging a judgment and order dated April 13, 2022, issued by the learned District Judge, Satara. This order had allowed an appeal from Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Plaintiffs) and set aside a previous order by the Civil Judge, Phaltan, which had rejected their application for a temporary injunction. The District Judge's ruling had restrained the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs' possession and cultivation of 3 acres of land, part of a larger property, until the final disposal of the suit.

 

 

Background of the Dispute:

The core of the dispute lies in a suit for partition and separate possession of an undivided interest in ancestral and joint family properties. The plaintiffs, descendants of Gopal, one of two sons of the common ancestor Tukaram Rawaji Wagh, claimed a 26/96th undivided interest. The defendants included the successors in interest of Gopal's first wife's son, Madhav, and the successors of Balu, Tukaram's other son.

The suit lands, initially purchased by Tukaram in Balu's name, were later leased to Phaltan Sugar Works Limited. Following Balu's demise, his son Tatyasaheb's name was mutated in the record of rights. Subsequently, Madhav's name was also mutated for a share of the land, acknowledging the joint family nature of the property.

A crucial point of contention arose when Madhav, after a 2012 amendment to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, applied for a portion of the land, falsely claiming to be the sole heir of late Gopal. Plaintiff No. 1 filed objections, leading to a committee suggesting adjudication by a Civil Court. An appeal ensued, where Plaintiff No. 1 and Madhav allegedly reached a settlement, with Madhav agreeing to allot three acres of land to Plaintiff No. 1. An order was purportedly passed in December 2014 to this effect, but subsequent orders led to the land being allotted only to Madhav and other defendants, not the plaintiffs.

The Injunction Application and Its Rejection:

The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction, claiming possession of three acres of land since 2014 based on the alleged settlement and asserting that they were cultivating sugarcane. They feared the defendants would illegally cut and claim the crop.

The Civil Judge, however, rejected the application in December 2021. The court noted the absence of the plaintiffs' names in the official land distribution order and found the affidavits of adjoining landowners and service providers unreliable due to a lack of corroborating evidence, such as mutation entries. Consequently, the Civil Judge concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or that the balance of convenience lay in their favor.

Appellate Court's Reversal and the High Court's Scrutiny:

The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, Satara, who reversed the trial court's decision. The District Judge found no reason to discard the affidavits and attributed the absence of mutation in the plaintiffs' names to their probable failure to pay "unearned income" (nazarana) to the State Government.

The High Court, in its review, meticulously examined the District Judge's reasoning against established principles of appellate interference in discretionary orders. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd., Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, the High Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with a trial court's discretionary order unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely, or by ignoring settled principles of law. The appellate court's role is not to re-assess material and reach a different conclusion if the trial court's conclusion was reasonably possible.

High Court's Findings:

The High Court found the District Judge's approach unjustifiable. It highlighted that the District Judge did not assert that the trial court's order was perverse or based on no evidence. Instead, the District Judge introduced a new explanation regarding the non-payment of nazarana, which was not pleaded by the plaintiffs.

"A meaningful reading of the plaint as a whole, indicates that there is no whisper about the circumstances on account of which the terms of the settlement could not be given effect to in the record of rights of the suit land," the High Court observed. "In fact, the plaint is conspicuously silent about the delivery of possession of three acres of land by late Madhav to the Plaintiff No.1 in accordance with the said terms of settlement."

The High Court further noted the trial court's justification in finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish possession, particularly given the absence of averments in the plaint regarding their alleged seven-year possession and cultivation of the three acres and any obstruction thereof. The suit was primarily for partition and separate possession, with no initial plea for injunction related to current possession.

Finally, the High Court emphasized that, at best, the plaintiffs are co-owners. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating exclusive possession of the three acres, the District Judge could not have restrained other co-owners from exercising their rights over the entire suit land.

Conclusion:

Based on these considerations, the High Court concluded that the District Judge had committed a "manifest error" by interfering with the trial court's discretionary order and constructing a new case for the plaintiffs.
As a result, the Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order of the District Judge, Satara, dated April 13, 2022, was quashed and set aside, and the trial court's order rejecting the application for temporary injunction was restored. The parties are to bear their respective costs.