The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that courts must not grant blanket injunctions in property disputes without meticulously evaluating the balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In a significant clarification, the Court held that injunctive relief must be confined strictly to the disputed portion of land, preventing overreach that unfairly prejudices the possessor’s investments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jasrath, claims to be the absolute owner of a parcel of land acquired through registered sale deeds from Patiram, the legal heir of Smt. Dhanto Bai, who had bequeathed the property via Will. The petitioner developed the land, including constructing access roads and infrastructure. Respondent No. 1, Sunil Baghel, filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell concerning a 4 biswa share of the same land and sought a permanent injunction to prevent alienation. The trial court rejected the injunction application, finding no prima facie case, no balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and no irreparable loss.
Procedural History
- 17 October 2025: Trial Court dismissed plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction.
- 10 December 2025: First Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s order and granted a blanket injunction restraining the petitioner from any development or creation of third-party rights over the entire property.
- 23 January 2026: Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the appellate order as arbitrary and contrary to settled principles.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate court’s injunction order and restoration of the trial court’s dismissal, arguing that the injunction was disproportionate, caused irreparable financial harm, and ignored his status as a bona fide purchaser.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may grant a blanket injunction restraining all development and alienation over an entire property when the plaintiff’s claim pertains only to a specific, limited portion of the land, and whether the First Appellate Court properly applied the triple test for temporary injunction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Tushar Himatlal Jani v. Jasbir Singh Jijan & Others to argue that courts must weigh the balance of convenience and irreparable loss with precision. He contended that his substantial investment in development created a clear imbalance in favor of preserving his possession. The alleged agreement to sell was vague, unregistered, and pertained to only 4 biswa of a larger parcel, making a blanket injunction unjustified.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Government Advocate, did not contest the petitioner’s factual claims but emphasized that the appellate court’s order was a protective measure to preserve the status quo pending adjudication. No independent arguments were advanced by the plaintiff, who did not appear despite notice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the triple test for temporary injunction - prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss - and found the First Appellate Court had mechanically granted relief without applying this framework. The appellate court failed to distinguish between the entire property and the disputed 4 biswa share, thereby imposing an undue burden on the petitioner’s lawful possession.
"The First Appellate Court has exercised its jurisdiction in an arbitrary manner, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
The Court emphasized that injunctions must be proportionate and cannot be used to deprive a possessor of entire rights based on an unproven, partial claim. It noted that the petitioner had acted in good faith, invested resources, and held registered title to the land. The plaintiff’s claim, even if valid, did not justify halting all development. The Court distinguished between preserving the subject matter of litigation and stifling lawful use of non-disputed portions.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that injunctive relief must be confined to the specific disputed portion of land and set aside the blanket injunction. The petitioner was permitted to retain possession of the entire property but restrained from creating third-party rights over the 4 biswa share claimed by the plaintiff.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Injunctions Must Be Geographically Precise
- Practitioners must argue that injunctions should not extend beyond the exact area in dispute, even if the property is contiguous.
- Courts must explicitly identify the restricted portion in the order - vague phrases like "entire property" are legally unsustainable.
Investment by Possessor Is a Critical Factor in Balance of Convenience
- Substantial expenditure on development, especially with registered title, shifts the balance of convenience decisively toward the possessor.
- Courts must quantify or at least acknowledge the financial impact of overbroad injunctions on the defendant.
Vague Agreements Cannot Justify Restraining Possession
- Unregistered or ambiguous agreements to sell, especially for a fraction of a larger parcel, do not create a prima facie right to restrain possession of the whole.
- Courts must scrutinize the specificity of the alleged agreement before granting interim relief.
