(J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No. 1291 of 2025, decided on July 27, 2026
Sneha Shankar Katariya and Others _________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Subhash Tipanna Nelge and Others ________________ Respondent(s).
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 151 of 2024
In
SLP (C) No. 19677 of 2023
Civil Appeal No. 1291 of 2025; Contempt Petition (C) No. 151 of 2024; and SLP (C) No. 19677 of 2023
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The claim of temporary injunction against the creation of third-party rights on the property, was concurrently declined by the trial court and the High Court, in first appeal. The plaintiffs are before us seeking interim injunction.
2. The appellants who are the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration, on the strength of a sale deed dated 20.01.1994 and prayed for setting aside a Correction Deed dated 11.10.1996 and numerous sale deeds in favour of various defendants, allegedly executed subsequent to the deed, on the strength of which the suit had been filed. It has to be observed that the sale deed was of the year 1994 and though it is said to have been produced before the Registrar immediately thereafter, the same was registered only in the year 2001. However, the sale deed in favour of the developer, who was one of the defendants, was also of the year 2001, but it was registered prior to the deed of 1994, on which the plaintiffs raise their claim.
3. The High Court confirmed the rejection of the prayer for injunction finding that the power of attorney said to have been executed along with the agreement of sale on 03.06.1991 did not figure the 17th defendant. Defendant No. 17 admittedly was the co-owner of the subject property and got mutated her name in the Record of Rights pursuant to an application of 1999, after which she executed a sale deed on 10.08.2000 to defendant No. 68.
4. The High Court directed for the production of certified copy of the power of attorney referred to, in the sale deed dated 20.01.1994, which on production, did not show defendant No. 17 as an executant. Defendant No. 17 was also not an executant of the agreement for sale dated 03.06.1991 and was merely a witness to that document. Further, in the sale deed dated 20.01.1994, defendant No. 17 was shown as one of the executants, but a Correction Deed was executed removing the name of the defendant No. 17. In fact, one of the plaintiffs was a party to the Correction Deed and that deed is now sought to be cancelled in the suit filed.
5. It was also argued on behalf of the defendants that the suit was misconceived since the sale deed of 1994 was sought to be enforced through a suit in 2022; grossly delayed when third-party rights were created and the sale deed was also of suspicious origin and registered after a very long time without any explanation offered for such delay.
6. On a total conspectus of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the High Court. The developer is dealing with the property, and his constructions have been held up, is the submission of Sri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. Sri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, however, submits that no third-party rights be created and if it is so created, they be informed of the pendency of the suit.
7. On anxious consideration, we are not inclined to grant any order of injunction, restraining alienation or creation of third-party rights, since this would amount to literally frustrating the development activities in the property and unsuspecting purchasers cannot be mulcted with any liability. If the claim of the plaintiffs is upheld eventually and third-party rights are created in the meanwhile, rather than resumption or recovery of possession, the trial court could think in terms of monetary compensation which would be the liability of the developer and not the purchasers.
8. We make it clear that the findings herein are on a prima facie consideration and are not intended to regulate the final adjudication in the suit. The rejection of the prayer for injunction is on a finding that the prima facie case, the balance of convenience and the irreparable injury are all in favour of the defendants and not the plaintiffs.
9. The civil appeal stands rejected. On the reasoning above the contempt case also stands closed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1291/2025
Sneha Shankar Katariya & Ors.….Appellant(s)
Versus
Subhash Tipanna Nelge & Ors.….Respondent(s)
IA No. 156543/2024 – Exemption From Filing O.T.
IA No. 89721/2026 – Exemption From Filing O.T.
IA No. 39/2025 – Exemption From Filing O.T.
IA No. 66488/2024 – Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures
IA No. 89720/2026 – Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures
IA No. 38/2025 – Permission to File Additional Documents/Facts/Annexures
IA No. 89719/2026 – Vacating Stay
With
Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 151/2024 in Slp(C) No. 19677/2023 (Iii)
For
For Exemption From Filing O.T. on IA 64924/2024
IA No. 64924/2024 – Exemption From Filing O.T.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
1. The appeal stands rejected in terms of the signed order placed on the file.
2. Consequently, the contempt case also stands closed in view of the reasoning given in the signed order.
3. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
