Prahlad @ Prahladsingh Nair vs Premnarayan
2025 Latest Caselaw 5774 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prahlad @ Prahladsingh Nair vs Premnarayan on 20 March, 2025

                                                            1                                    FA-729-2021
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                      FA No. 729 of 2021
                                      (PRAHLAD @ PRAHLADSINGH NAIR Vs PREMNARAYAN AND OTHERS )



                          Dated : 20-03-2025
                                Shri Shailendra Polekar, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                Shri V.K Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Divyansh Luniya for
                          the respondent No.1.
                                Shri Rahul Kumar Laad, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to
                          4.

                                Perusal of the proceedings disclose that the appeal has not been
                          formally admitted.
                                Heard on admission.
                                The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
                                Heard on I.A.No.6967/2021 filed by appellant/plaintiff under Order
                          39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w section 151 of the CPC seeking relief that till the disposal
                          of appeal defendants/respondents be restrained from altering the nature of
                          the suit property by way of dismantling the suit property i.e. 597/1, 60 sq. ft.
                          of house no.993, Sudamanagar main road, Indore and to restrain the

                          defendant no.1 to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant no.4 or
                          other persons and to restrain defendant no.5 from mutation in his record or
                          registered sale deed.
                                Facts in brief are that plaintiff/appellant filed civil suit on the strength

of Ex.P/1 dated 01.04.2006 for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. The suit property of house no.993, Sudamanagar

2 FA-729-2021 main road, Indore was allotted by defendant no.5 Shikshak Kalyan Samiti, Sudamanagar, Indore to Ramchandra and from Ramchandra the suit property was transferred to defendant no.1 Premnarayan and Premnarayan executed Ex.P/1 in favour of plaintiff/appellant for a consideration of Rs.2,99,001/- and Rs.51,001/- was paid as part consideration and rest was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The limit was fixed as 31.03.2007. Alleging failure to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff and trying to alienate the property to defendant no.4 this suit was filed. The suit was contested denying Ex.P/1 and asserting that the same has been transferred in favour of defendant no.4.

Trial court framed issued the found proved the execution of agreement dated 01.04.2014 (Ex.P/1) and payment of Rs.51,001/- as consideration but

dismissed the suit referring to provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, this first appeal has been preferred and respondent no.1 has filed application under section 151 of the CPC challenging the finding recorded by the trial court on issues no.1b, 1c, 2, 6 & 7 against the respondents.

IA No.6967/21 is replied by respondents No.2 to 4 vide document no.2344/2022 and opposed the prayer referring that trial court has rightly dismissed the suit and no relief even by way of temporary injunction can be granted in favour of appellant/plaintiff. Respondent No.4 is bona fide purchaser and has paid the entire sale consideration and respondent no.4 is entitled to use and enjoy the suit property. The suit property is not being put to change the nature. The non grant of injunction will not create multiplicity

3 FA-729-2021 of the suit as the respondent no.4 himself is recorded with the record of respondent no.5. There is nothing to demolish in the suit property. The suit property which was in deteriorated condition was already demolished on 04.12.2006 itself.

Heard.

Perused the record.

Vide order dated 29.10.2021 status quo was ordered to be maintained by the parties till next date and that interim relief is continuing till now.

Considering the finding recorded by the trial court regarding issue no.1a, 1b, 1c and 2 and the plea of respondents No.2 to 4 that suit property has already been demolished on 04.12.2006 and the fact that if new construction is raised then it may have the effect of changing the nature of the suit property, IA No.6967/2021 deserves to be allowed and it is allowed and respondents No.1 to 4 are restrained to further alienate the suit property and to raise new construction without the permission of this Court till the final disposal of this appeal.

Matter be listed for final hearing in due course.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE

hk/