Calcutta High Court holds that prior transfer of title by plaintiff defeats claim for interim injunction, even if violation of injunction is alleged; affirms that established legal tests—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—remain mandatory. Existing precedents on nullity of transfers in violation distinguished on facts. The decision is binding authority for West Bengal’s subordinate courts on interim injunction standards in property disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CO/1574/2023 of RADHA NATH NANDY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0238532023 |
| Date of Registration | 12-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge – Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms orders of Additional District Judge, VIIth Court at Alipore |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure – Interim injunctions in property disputes; Article 227 jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether a plaintiff, having transferred title and possession by registered conveyance, can seek interim injunction against defendants in respect of the same property, especially when transfer is alleged in violation of prior injunction. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court reaffirmed that to grant an order of injunction, three legal tests must be satisfied: (i) prima facie case to go for trial; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable loss and injury. In this case, the petitioners, having transferred their right, title, interest, and possession by registered deed, failed to establish a prima facie case. The allegations of transfer in violation of an injunction do not automatically entitle the plaintiff to interim injunction if the plaintiff’s title is no longer subsisting. The court distinguished prior precedents holding that acts in violation of injunction orders are null and void when the factual context is different. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court noted that while powers exist under Section 151 CPC to remedy wrongs and prevent abuse, such powers are not triggered automatically by mere allegation of violation of injunction if plaintiff lacks legal title. Legal tests for injunction are mandatory and must be established by the plaintiff, regardless of alleged violation of prior court orders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners filed a suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction regarding immovable property, alleging illegal construction and encroachment by defendants. Applications for ad interim injunction were rejected by trial court; interim status quo granted on appeal but ultimately dismissed. Petitioners had conveyed title to defendants by registered deeds prior to seeking interim injunction, and had accepted valuable consideration. Petitioners pursued writ petition regarding building plan, also disposed against them due to absence of title. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (on interpretation of interim injunction standards under Order 39 and Section 151 CPC) |
| Follows | Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah & Ors. (AIR 1975 Mad 270); Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun & Ors. (AIR 1986 Cal 220) |
| Distinguishes | Jehal Tanti & Ors. v. Nageshwar Singh (2013) 14 SCC 689; Sonu Bhati & Anr. v. Archana Jain & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 13.01.2025, LPA 23/2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that transfer of property by plaintiff extinguishes entitlement to interim injunction, irrespective of alleged violation of prior injunction.
- Legal tests for injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—are mandatory and not discretionary.
- Distinguishes prior precedents regarding nullity of transfers in violation of injunction when title has already passed to defendants.
- Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to undo violations of injunction are not triggered if plaintiff has no subsisting legal interest in the property.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered whether the petitioners, having already transferred title and possession of the disputed property via registered deeds, could seek interim injunction against the opposite parties.
- It reviewed prior orders in the suit—initial refusal of ad interim injunction, subsequent status quo order, and dismissal of the appeal at the Misc. Appeal stage.
- Relied upon precedents (Century Flour Mills, Sujit Pal) establishing the duty of courts to undo violations of injunction but clarified these principles do not apply where plaintiff’s title is extinguished.
- Affirmed that the three legal tests—existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—must all be satisfied for grant of injunction.
- Distinguished Supreme Court (Jehal Tanti) and Delhi High Court precedents on transfers in violation of injunction as factually inapplicable, since petitioners here had voluntarily transferred title and possession for consideration.
- Concluded appellate dismissal of interim relief justified; absence of infirmity under Article 227.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (in person)
- Alleged defendants violated injunction order and forcibly made construction.
- Contended that acts in violation of injunction must be remedied by the court.
- Claimed transfer to defendants was made under coercion.
- Relied on precedents emphasizing court’s duty to undo transfers made in violation of injunction.
Respondent (Defendants/Opposite Parties)
- Submitted that petitioners had voluntarily transferred title and possession by registered deeds for valuable consideration.
- Pointed out original conveyance deeds were in petitioners’ custody and later handed over to opposite parties.
- Asserted petitioners ceased to have any right, title, or interest in the property after execution of sale.
- Supported appellate court’s refusal to grant injunction.
Factual Background
The petitioners filed a suit seeking declarations as to their exclusive ownership, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction against the defendants with regard to immovable property. They alleged illegal encroachment and construction by the defendants, culminating in the project named “Eden Exotica.” While pursuing legal proceedings, the petitioners had already conveyed their title and possession by executing registered sale deeds in favor of the defendants, for valuable consideration. Despite securing a temporary status quo order at the appellate stage, the final relief of interim injunction was denied. Petitioners also challenged a related building plan approval, but the writ was dismissed upon acknowledgment of absence of ownership.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were central—the court analyzed their requirements.
- Reiterated that for interim injunction, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable injury.
- Also referenced Article 227 of the Constitution as the basis for High Court’s revisional jurisdiction, but found no basis for interference due to absence of error by lower courts.
- Section 151 CPC enables inherent powers to undo wrongs but is only triggered where the plaintiff has a subsisting legal right.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court adheres to established legal tests for interim injunction under Order 39, CPC.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Distinguishes but does not overrule conflicting Supreme Court/Delhi High Court decisions on violation of injunction orders.
Citations
- Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. S. Suppiah & Ors. AIR 1975 Mad 270
- Sujit Pal v. Prabir Kumar Sun & Ors. AIR 1986 Cal 220
- Jehal Tanti & Ors. v. Nageshwar Singh (2013) 14 SCC 689
- Sonu Bhati & Anr. v. Archana Jain & Ors., Delhi High Court, 13.01.2025, LPA 23/2025 & CM 1630/2025