Allahabad High Court Grants Interim Injunction to Protect Disputed Property

Mahesh Kumar and others secure a legal victory against Omaira Buildcon in a property dispute, with the court restraining alienation of the land.

In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has granted an interim injunction to Mahesh Kumar and three others, preventing Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia from alienating or transferring a disputed property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance. The judgment, delivered by Justice Sandeep Jain on October 15, 2025, overturns a previous trial court decision which had denied the plaintiffs' request for an injunction on erroneous grounds.

The case revolves around a land situated in khet No.114M, village Mirzapur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs for Rs.2.05 crores. Despite a registered agreement executed in July 2022, the defendant allegedly defaulted on executing the sale deed, prompting the plaintiffs to file a suit for specific performance.

During the legal proceedings, the plaintiffs expressed concerns that the defendant might sell the property to third parties, complicating the legal case. The trial court had initially rejected their injunction request, citing lack of possession and ownership on the plaintiffs' part, and relying on the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which implies that any transfer made during litigation would be subject to the suit's outcome.

However, Justice Sandeep Jain, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi (2024) 11 SCC 351, emphasized that an interim injunction can still be granted under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, despite the lis pendens principle. The court recognized the plaintiffs' apprehensions about potential complications arising from third-party rights and deemed the trial court's reasoning as perverse.

The judgment underscores the importance of interim injunctions in property disputes, especially when the potential for third-party involvement could affect equitable reliefs such as specific performance. The court's decision to allow the appeal and grant the injunction reflects an acknowledgment of the plaintiffs' legal rights and the necessity to prevent further legal entanglements.

The trial court has been directed to expedite the resolution of the original suit within six months, ensuring minimal delays and adherence to legal procedures.

Bottom Line:

Injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC can be granted to restrain the defendant from alienating or transferring the disputed property during the pendency of the suit, notwithstanding the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Statutory provision(s): Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of CPC

Mahesh Kumar v. Omaira Buildcon Proprietor Lalit Gogia, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2797691