Can a plaintiff maintain an ad interim injunction after transferring title to the suit property?

High Court reaffirms the three-fold test for interim injunction and holds that transfer of entire interest extinguishes prima facie case

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Clarifies that a plaintiff who validly transfers title and possession of the suit property loses standing to claim an interim injunction.
• Reaffirms that the three-fold test for interim relief—prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable harm—remains inviolable.
• Confirms that precedents invalidating sales made in breach of injunction orders do not apply where the vendor himself executed the sale.
• Emphasises the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to prevent abuse of judicial process.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The court examined the registered sale deeds and jimmanama, concluding petitioners had conveyed all interest to M/s. Nortech Property Pvt. Ltd., thus lacking title or possession.
2. It restated the settled three-fold test under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC for granting interim injunctions.
3. It applied Century Flour Mills Ltd. and Sujit Pal to confirm inherent powers under Section 151 CPC do not override the need to satisfy these tests.
4. It distinguished Jehal Tanti and Sonu Bhati, noting those involved sales in breach of injunction, whereas here petitioners themselves executed valid transfers.
5. It upheld the appellate court’s dismissal of interim relief for failure to satisfy any of the three tests.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Radha Nath Nandy / Moni Manjusha Nandy):

• Opposite parties breached the injunction by constructing and transferring portions of the suit property.
• Sale deeds executed in violation of injunction orders are null and void (relying on Jehal Tanti; Sonu Bhati).
• The court must intervene to correct the wrong and prevent abuse of process.

Opposite Parties (Directors of M/s. Nortech Property Pvt. Ltd.):

• Petitioners voluntarily conveyed the property by registered deeds for valuable consideration.
• Petitioners no longer hold title or possession, hence lack locus standi for injunction.
• The trial and appellate courts correctly refused interim relief after petitioners handed over original titles and reclaimed them by jimmanama.

Factual Background

The petitioners filed Title Suits seeking declarations of title, possession recovery and injunction against alleged unauthorized multi-storey construction (“Eden Exotica”). Their ad interim injunction application was refused at trial, temporarily granted on appeal, and ultimately dismissed. In the interim, the petitioners had sold the entire suit property to M/s. Nortech Property Pvt. Ltd. by registered sale deeds and later retrieved the documents by jimmanama. A writ challenging sanction of a building plan was dismissed when it was held they no longer owned the land.

Statutory Analysis

• Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC: Established tests for interim injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury.
• Section 151 CPC: Inherent powers to prevent abuse of process, but subject to the three-fold injunction test.
• Article 227 Constitution of India: Supervisory jurisdiction to examine jurisdictional errors, not to re-appraise factual matrix or re-grant interim relief without legal tests being met.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Three-fold test for granting injunction
• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Distinguishes Jehal Tanti & Sr. Singh and Sonu Bhati & Ors.

Citations

• AIR 1975 Mad 270 (Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah)
• AIR 1986 Cal 220 (Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun)
• (2013) 14 SCC 689 (Jehal Tanti & Ors. v. Nageshwar Singh)
• LPA 23 of 2025 & CM 1630 of 2025 (Sonu Bhati & Anr. v. Archana Jain & Ors.)
• CNR WBCHCA0238532023