A discretionary order granting a temporary injunction should not be interfered with unless it is arbitrary or perverse (Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727). An unregistered Agreement for Sale can be received in evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 4 SCR 515). Even a trespasser in settled possession has a right to protect possession (R. Hemalatha Vs. Kashthuri, (2023) 2 SCR 834).

Agreement for Sale does not require compulsory registration and can be used as evidence in a suit for specific performance. Unregistered Mortgage Deed can be considered for collateral purposes, including establishing the nature of possession. Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the discretionary order of the Trial Court, which was based on prima facie evidence. The order of the District Judge was quashed, and the Trial Court’s order granting temporary injunction was restored.

Order

1. Writ Petition allowed.
2. Order of the District Judge set aside.
3. Temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court restored.
4. No costs awarded.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Power of superintendence over courts.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54 – Contract for sale does not create an interest in immovable property.
Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 49 – Registration of documents affecting immovable property; admissibility of unregistered documents.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Specific performance of contract.

Subjects:

Writ Petition – Specific Performance – Agreement for Sale – Temporary Injunction – Unregistered Document – Possession – Appellate Jurisdiction – Mortgage – Prima Facie Case – Collateral Purpose – Jurisdictional Limits – Lawful Title.

Nature of the Litigation:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the District Judge, Gadhinglaj, which set aside the temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge, restraining the defendant from disturbing the possession of the suit land.

Relief Sought by the Petitioner:

The petitioner sought the restoration of a temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court, asserting his right to possession based on an Agreement for Sale and a prior Mortgage Deed.

Reason for Filing the Case:

The appellate court reversed the Trial Court's order by holding that the Agreement for Sale was unregistered, thus denying the plaintiff protection over his possession. The petitioner challenged this finding.

What Had Already Been Decided?

a. Trial Court’s Order (28th October 2015): Granted temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, recognizing prima facie possession over the suit land.
b. District Judge’s Order (24th June 2016): Set aside the injunction, holding that an unregistered Agreement for Sale cannot confer lawful possession.

Issues

a. Whether an unregistered Agreement for Sale is admissible in evidence for specific performance?
b. Whether an unregistered Mortgage Deed can be considered for collateral purposes?
c. Whether the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the discretionary order of the Trial Court?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments

• Agreement for Sale does not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
• Section 49 of the Registration Act permits an unregistered agreement to be used as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
• The Trial Court’s finding on possession was based on material evidence, which the District Judge erred in disregarding.
• Judgment in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363 was wrongly applied by the District Judge, as it was related to Power of Attorney Sales, not a genuine Agreement for Sale.
• Unregistered Mortgage Deed can be considered for collateral purposes to determine the nature of possession.

Respondent’s Arguments

• Unregistered Agreement for Sale cannot create a legal title and thus does not justify possession.
• Mortgage Deed was unregistered, hence not admissible in evidence.
• The Agreement for Sale recorded that the defendant was in possession, contradicting the plaintiff’s claim.