Summary
The Court declined to restore a developer’s temporary injunction protecting alleged possession of land under an agreement of sale. Physical possession and payment of consideration were seriously disputed and required trial. An existing injunction against alienation or creation of third-party rights sufficiently protected the developer’s interest pending suit, which was directed to be expedited.
Issues
- Whether the interim injunction protecting the developer’s alleged possession should be restored despite disputed possession and consideration.
Held
- Whether physical possession had been delivered and whether part consideration for the disputed property had been paid were seriously contested factual questions for trial. The developer’s without-prejudice deposit offer did not resolve those disputes. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The existing prohibition on alienation or creation of third-party rights sufficiently protected the developer’s interest. No interference was warranted with the order vacating the separate injunction against interference with possession. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The observations were confined to the interim stage and expressed no opinion on the merits. The trial was to be expedited and preferably completed within one year. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed; the Division Bench orders vacating the possession injunction were affirmed. The injunction against alienation or creation of third-party rights remained in place. Suit directed to be disposed of preferably within one year; pending applications disposed of.