Foreign nationals' holding of immovable property requires statutory declaration compliance, and injunctions need possession or restoration claims.

A foreign national could continue to hold immovable property in India acquired before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act only if the section 31 declaration requirement was complied with; non-compliance meant the property could not be treated as lawfully held for the purposes of relief. The Court also treated temporary injunction as unavailable where the claimant was not in actual possession of the suit property and had not sought restoration of possession, since possessory relief under the Specific Relief Act depends on possession or a prayer to recover it. On both grounds, the refusal of injunction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a foreign national holding immovable property in India was required to comply with section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether non-compliance deprived him of the right to be treated as holding such property. (ii) Whether a temporary injunction could be granted when the petitioner was not in actual possession of the suit property and had not sought restoration of possession.

Issue (i): Whether a foreign national holding immovable property in India was required to comply with section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether non-compliance deprived him of the right to be treated as holding such property.

Analysis: Section 31 was construed as a whole. Sub-section (1) imposed a prohibition on acquisition or holding of immovable property in India by a person who is not a citizen of India except with Reserve Bank permission, while sub-section (4) required a declaration where such property was already being held at the commencement of the Act. The word "hold" was understood to include both title and possession. The Court held that sub-section (4) did not divest pre-existing rights, but made their continued enjoyment conditional upon compliance with the declaration requirement. The Act was treated as a regulatory statute and not as one whose penalties changed the scope of the substantive prohibition.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not claim to be holding the property in the manner required by law without compliance with section 31(4), and the courts below were right in refusing relief on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether a temporary injunction could be granted when the petitioner was not in actual possession of the suit property and had not sought restoration of possession.

Analysis: The petitioner was not in actual possession after the liberation of Goa, and the property had been under the control of other authorities before being handed over to the society in possession. Relief under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act was treated as dependent on possession or, where possession had been lost, on a prayer for its restoration. As no such prayer was made, the basis for a temporary injunction was absent. The subsequent completion of construction also rendered the proceeding infructuous in practical terms.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to temporary injunction on the ground of absence of possession and absence of a prayer for restoration of possession.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal of injunction was sustained, and the revision failed on both the statutory restriction on holding property and the absence of a proper possessory foundation for injunctive relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign national may continue to hold immovable property acquired before the commencement of a regulatory statute only if the statutory declaration requirement is complied with, and injunctive relief protecting property rights ordinarily requires possession or a claim for restoration of possession.

---