Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Veena Sharma Doughter Of Shri Ram ... vs Mohammad Salim on 19 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143
1 MA-6564-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 6564 of 2025
SMT.VEENA SHARMA DOUGHTER OF SHRI RAM PRASAD
SHARMA THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
Versus
MOHAMMAD SALIM
Appearance:
Ms. Amrit Kaur Ruprah - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ishteyaq Husain - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.) against the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 824- A/2024 in connection with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., by the 12th District Judge, Bhopal, whereby the learned trial court allowed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. and issued an interim injunction restraining alienation of the property till the decision of the suit.
2. Respondent/non-appellant had filed a Civil Suit before the trial court for specific performance of the contract along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. The plaintiff stated in his application that there is a prima facie case in his favour and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 2 MA-6564-2025 that he paid Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance at the time of the contract, hence, the balance of convenience is also in his favour. The defendant does not want to sell the property to him and is trying to sell it to another person. If he succeeds in selling it, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. Hence, he prayed for interim protection.
3. The appellant objected to the impugned order on the ground that the plaintiff did not have sufficient funds to purchase the property, he is only a broker and could not arrange funds from purchasers in the market. He never tried to get the sale deed executed on payment of Rs. 1,90,01,000/- within the stipulated period. Time was the essence of the contract. The appellant had partitioned the land in the revenue records, but the plaintiff failed to arrange the sale consideration and sought time to arrange the money, which was denied by the appellant. Hence, the plaintiff unnecessarily raised an issue regarding the measurement of the property, despite the fact that the disputed property was found to be the same as per the previous registry or Nakshabatakan proceedings. There is no dispute regarding the area of the land because the disputed land is surrounded by a boundary wall, and the plaintiff, after seeing it, entered into the agreement. There is no pleading regarding readiness and willingness and availability of funds, hence, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Secondly, on the payment of token money of Rs.2,00,000/-, he restrained the amount of Rs. 1,90,01,000/-; hence, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 3 MA-6564-2025 failed to show sufficient funds in his possession, therefore, he will not suffer irreparable loss, as his rights are protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court erred in allowing the application, hence, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
4. It is not disputed that the appellant/respondent is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 456/1, admeasuring 0.1470 hectare (0.36 decimal), situated at Babdiyakala, Old Ward No. 56, Patwari Halka No. 42, Mandal 4, Vikashkhand Fanda, Tehsil Hujur, District Bhopal. It is also not disputed that the respondent purchased the disputed land from the erstwhile owner, Smt. Sunder Bai, on 09.09.1989. It is also not disputed that on 06.12.2023, the respondent and the plaintiff entered into an agreement, and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the disputed land at the rate of Rs. 1,200 per square feet. The total land area was 16,000 square feet. The total cost of the land was Rs. 1,92,01,000/-. Both parties agreed that advance money of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the owner and the remaining amount would be paid within six months, and the registry would be executed. If any dispute arose, the time period would be extended with the consent of the parties. It is also mentioned in the agreement that, if needed, the vendor would get the land measured. It is further mentioned in the agreement that the registry would be executed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominated person. It is also mentioned that if the land was found short on measurement, then the consideration Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 4 MA-6564-2025 amount would be adjusted as per the measurement.
5. On 26.03.2024, a report was submitted to the Tehsildar by the Patwari stating that the owner of land bearing Survey No. 456/1, admeasuring 0.1470 hectare, had filed an application for Nakshabatakan. As per the revenue record, the appellant, Veena Bai, is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 456/1, admeasuring 0.1470 hectare, in the presence of adjoining landowners. After verifying the land as per the registry and boundaries, the Batankan was made in the Naksha, and a Panchanama was also prepared for Batankan on 29.02.2024 in the presence of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is proved that the disputed land was partitioned. A report dated 26.03.2024 was submitted to the Tehsildar by the Patwari stating that the owner of land bearing Survey No. 456/1, admeasuring 0.1470 hectare, had filed an application for Nakshabatakan. As per the revenue record, the appellant, Veena Bai, is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 456/1, admeasuring 0.1470 hectare, in the presence of adjoining landowners. After verifying the land as per the registry and boundaries, the Batankan was made in the Naksha, and a Panchanama was also prepared for Batankan on 29.02.2024 in the presence of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is proved that the disputed land was partitioned as per the order dated 29.02.2024, and the area was found to be the same as per the previous registry. There is no report that the area was found to be less during verification of the land.
6. Respondent reliance on the judgement Maharwal Khewaji Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 5 MA-6564-2025 Trust (Regd.) v. Baldev Dass, (2004) 8 SCC 488 , the facts of the above case are that the appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 541 of 2000 for possession of the suit scheduled property with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking injunction restraining the respondent herein from alienating the suit property and putting up any construction thereon. The trial court, on the interim application filed by the appellant, granted an order of temporary injunction, as prayed for. In the above circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the facts of this case do not make out any extraordinary ground for permitting the respondent to put up construction and alienate the same, we think both the courts below, namely, the lower appellate court and the High Court, erred in making the impugned orders. The said orders are set aside, and the order of the trial court is restored.
7. Respondent reliance on the judgement Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, (2024) 11 SCC 351 the facts of the above case are that the appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs before the trial court, instituted Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2019 for declaration, cancellation of registered sale deed bearing No. 2863 dated 23-3-2018 and permanent injunction against the respondents herein, that is, the original defendants. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application below, Ext. 5 for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). The trial court took the view that the sale deed executed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 6 MA-6564-2025 by Defendant 1 in favour of Defendant 3 did not bear the signatures of any of the plaintiffs. Further, the plaintiffs had produced the sale deed of 1991 by way of which the plaintiffs along with Defendants 1 and 2, respectively, had become joint owners of the suit property. In view of the aforesaid, the trial court took the view that the plaintiffs were able to establish a prima facie case that they have a right, title and interest in the suit property. Further, the trial court held that the facts of the case suggested that the balance of convenience was in the favour of the plaintiffs and further that if temporary injunction was not granted, then the plaintiffs may suffer loss that cannot be compensated in terms of money. In above circumstances Hon'ble Supreme Court held the respondents herein shall maintain status quo as regards the suit property as on date and shall not create any further encumbrances over the same in any manner. Any further transfer of the suit property pending the final disposal of the suit shall be subject to lispendens under Section 52 of the TP Act irrespective of the fact whether such lispendens has been duly registered by the plaintiffs with the competent authority or not. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
8. In the case of Kamal Kumar Vs. Premlata Joshi and Others reported in 2019 [3] SCC 704, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and the material questions which are required to be looked into by Court. It is useful to refer to paragraph No.10 of the said judgment:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 7 MA-6564-2025 ''10. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property. Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract. Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff;
lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money, etc. and, if so, on what grounds.
9. To establish a prima facie case for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove a valid contract exists, show they were always ready and willing to perform their part (readiness and willingness), and provide documents like bank statements or pay orders to prove financial capacity, and that the balance of convenience must be in favours granting the relief. There is no pleading in the plaint regarding the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 8 MA-6564-2025 readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to purchase the disputed property, there is no statement to show the plaintiff having sufficient fund to purchase the disputed property. Plaintiff never sends a notice to the defendant to executed sale deed in favour of him. After batankan proceeding defendant has raised a issue regarding the measurement of the disputed property, in spite of that the disputed property found as per the previous registry, therefore no need to measuring the disputed lands before the registry. Defendant unnecessary raised the question to measuring the land to evade the contract. On the payment of only Rs. 2,00,000/- he wants to evade the registry on payment of remaining amount of 1,90,00,000/-, hence the equity is not in favour of the plaintiff.
10. It is evident from the spot panchnama dated 29.02.2024, that on 22.02.2024, notice was issued, and in the presence of the plaintiff and respondent along with other agriculturists, the land was verified and the spot was raised by D.S.M. machine and Batankan was incorporated in the map. On 22.02.2024, an application was also filed by the plaintiff for measurement of the land, but the same was not done. There is no dispute regarding the area of the land. The disputed land was surrounded by a boundary wall, and the plaintiff himself could have measured the property, but he did not do so. After the passage of one year till now, no measurement has been done by the plaintiff, which shows that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to purchase the property until he Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:6143 9 MA-6564-2025 measured the property, submitted the report, and also showed that he had sufficient funds.
11. Plaintiff has no prima facie case, and equity is also not in his favour. After paying the token money, he has not suffered any losses; in spite of that, he does not have sufficient funds. Therefore, the trial court erred in holding a prima facie case solely on the ground that the respondent had issued an advertisement for the sale of the disputed property. Plaintiff should have demonstrated sufficient funds in his hand, but he failed to show it. In my opinion, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff in the absence of pleading regarding readiness and willingness and failure to show sufficient funds. This is not a fit case to issue an injunction against the owner of the property.
12. After due consideration of the facts, this appeal deserves to be allowed; hence, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is set aside.
No order for cost.
(PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE Praveen Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAVEEN Signing time: 1/23/2026 5:36:28 PM