The court affirmed that where a registered deed of conveyance lacks any express condition of reconveyance on repayment, a plaintiff seeking interim injunction cannot, prima facie, assert a right to that relief, even if the underlying suit contends the transaction was a loan secured by the property. This judgment follows prevailing law, reinforcing current precedent for subordinate courts in similar contexts involving property transferred as collateral for loans.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FMA/1348/2025 of NIMAI CHANDRA SAU Vs TAPAS KUMAR JANA |
| CNR | WBCHCA0358682025 |
| Date of Registration | 31-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms trial court’s refusal to grant injunction |
| Type of Law | Civil, Property Law, Interim Relief |
| Questions of Law | Whether interim injunction can be granted in favour of a plaintiff claiming a property transfer was a loan collateral, absent an express clause of reconveyance in a registered conveyance deed. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, in the absence of any clause for reconveyance on repayment in the registered deed of conveyance, the trial court committed no error in refusing interim injunction. Although the plaintiff is entitled to establish in trial that the transaction was, in substance, a loan, prima facie relief cannot be granted against the express terms of a registered document. The findings are confined to the interim stage and do not prejudice the trial of the principal suit. The court also directed expedited trial of the underlying suit. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The plaintiff claimed to have transferred property as collateral for a loan and sought an injunction and declaration to that effect, offering to repay the loan for reconveyance. The trial court refused injunction, noting the absence of any reconveyance clause in the registered deed in favour of the defendant. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and, to a limited extent, the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
Follows existing principle that express registered deed prevails at interim stage unless fraud or express reconveyance condition is pleaded and prima facie made out. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that absence of a reconveyance clause in a registered conveyance deed is determinative against interim injunction, even if plaintiff alleges loan-collateral nature.
- The plaintiff’s right to prove the substantive nature of the transaction at trial is explicitly preserved; denial of interim relief does not affect trial merits.
- Emphasizes speedy trial direction in longstanding suits involving complex property disputes.
- Useful authority when defending against interim injunctions sought on the basis of alleged collateral security without documentary support.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court scrutinized the registered deed and observed that it contained no condition for reconveyance upon repayment, undermining the plaintiff’s application for injunction at the interim stage.
- Reference was made to the principle that unless the registered conveyance indicates otherwise, the express terms of such a document prevail for purposes of interim relief.
- Although the plaintiff may still attempt to prove by evidence at trial that the apparent conveyance was in fact a loan arrangement (loan-cum-mortgage), such arguments do not suffice for grant of interlocutory injunction in the absence of explicit documentary support.
- The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, dismissed the appeal, and ordered an expedited trial, making it clear that findings at the interim stage would not prejudice the substantive suit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Contended that the transaction was a loan in substance, with the property acting as collateral.
- Argued that the plaintiff was now willing to repay the loan, so a reconveyance to him should be ordered.
- Sought interim injunction to prevent any dealing with the property during the pendency of the suit.
Respondent:
- Relied on the registered deed of conveyance, arguing that there was no clause requiring reconveyance upon repayment.
- Supported the trial court’s order refusing injunction, as no prima facie case for such relief was made out.
Factual Background
The suit was filed by the appellant, who claimed that a transaction with the respondent, structured as a registered deed of conveyance, was truly a loan agreement with the property given as collateral. The appellant sought a declaration to this effect and an injunction preventing transfer or dealing with the property, offering to repay the alleged loan for reconveyance. The trial court denied the prayer for interim injunction due to the absence of any reconveyance clause in the registered deed, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The court applied the settled law that the terms of a registered deed must be relied upon for interim orders; such documents are accorded high evidentiary value absent pleadings and prima facie proof of fraud, coercion, or mistake.
- Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invoked to summarily dismiss the appeal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered. The judgment is unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court issued a specific direction to the trial court to make all efforts to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within a year from communication of its order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court reaffirmed existing legal principles regarding the role of registered deeds in interim injunction applications in property disputes.