Court Modifies Relief on Counter-Claim, Emphasizes Specific Relief Act's Application in Distinct Causes
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, presided by Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, has dismissed a Second Appeal filed by K. Kandasamy, who sought to overturn the concurrent judgments of the lower courts in a property dispute involving a specific performance decree and a subsequent suit for injunction. The court's decision, dated January 2, 2026, reaffirms the principle that a suit for an injunction is not barred by an earlier specific performance suit unless an equally efficacious remedy exists.
The case originated from a property dispute where K. Kandasamy had entered into a sale agreement with the first defendant, which was later followed by an ex parte decree for specific performance. Despite this, Kandasamy faced resistance from P. Natarajan and others, who claimed prior purchase and possession of the property. The trial court initially dismissed Kandasamy's suit for injunction while allowing the counter-claim of the defendants, which sought cancellation of the specific performance decree, citing fraud and non-impleadment of necessary parties.
On appeal, the High Court found the trial court's application of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to be incorrect, noting that the injunction suit arose from a distinct cause of action involving different parties. However, the court modified the relief granted on the counter-claim, declaring that the decree in the specific performance suit was not binding on the defendants, rather than cancelling it outright, thus aligning with established legal principles under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The High Court also clarified procedural aspects regarding appeals in cases involving composite decrees from suits and counter-claims, asserting that a single appeal is maintainable provided requisite court fees are paid for all reliefs sought. This ruling addresses procedural ambiguities and reinforces the statutory requirements for appealing such judgments.
Ultimately, the court upheld the denial of the injunction to Kandasamy, emphasizing the lack of evidence of possession and the absence of a directive for possession in the specific performance decree. This judgment underscores the importance of procedural and substantive compliance in property disputes and the necessity for precise pleadings and evidence in claims involving allegations of fraud and collusion.
Bottom Line:
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Relief under Section 41(h) - A bare suit for injunction is not barred merely because an earlier suit for specific performance did not include an injunction relief, especially when the subsequent cause of action and different parties are involved.
Statutory provision(s): Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 41(h), 38; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 6-A, Order XLI Rule 33
K.Kandasamy v. P.Natarajan, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2832678
