Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a writ petition filed by the original defendant challenging the Appellate Court's judgment that allowed an appeal and granted temporary injunction to the original plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration and mandatory injunction for a right of way over the defendant's land, based on an easement by grant as per a recital in a sale deed dated 06.04.2018. The Trial Court initially rejected the temporary injunction application, but the Appellate Court reversed this order, restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiff's use of the disputed way. The defendant argued that the Appellate Court erred by interfering with the Trial Court's discretionary order, citing inconsistencies in relief claims and potential loss from removing sweet lemon trees, while the plaintiff contended that the easement by grant justified the injunction. The High Court considered the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, focusing on the sale deed recital and Commissioner's Report. It analyzed precedents on appellate interference and easement by grant, ultimately upholding the Appellate Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable loss during the suit's pendency.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Loss - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - The plaintiff claimed a right of way based on an easement by grant in a sale deed recital, seeking temporary injunction to use a bullock cart way - The High Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case due to the recital, and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss favored granting injunction to prevent obstruction during suit pendency (Paras 11-14). B) Property Law - Easement by Grant - Sale Deed Recital - Not mentioned - The dispute centered on an easement by grant created via a handwritten recital in a sale deed, which the plaintiff relied upon for an approach way - The High Court considered the recital as a contractual matter between parties, emphasizing it as the basis for the plaintiff's claim, despite defendant's coercion allegation (Paras 11-13). C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Interference - Discretionary Orders - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - The Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's rejection of temporary injunction, which the defendant challenged as unwarranted interference - The High Court upheld the Appellate Court's decision, finding it justified based on errors in the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence and the Commissioner's Report (Paras 4-7, 10).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Appellate Court was justified in allowing the appeal and granting temporary injunction to the plaintiff for an approach way based on an easement by grant as per the recital in the Sale Deed, and whether the Appellate Court's interference with the Trial Court's discretionary order was warranted.
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
High Court upheld the Appellate Court's judgment and order dated 11.03.2025, granting temporary injunction to the plaintiff, and dismissed the writ petition
