FSI/TDR as a benefit arising from land may be specifically enforced, while contractual access rights may still fail for interim relief.

FSI/TDR treated as a benefit arising out of land and, on the interlocutory record, as capable of specific enforcement; the appellate court therefore preserved contractual protection over that component and set aside the clarification that had curtailed it. By contrast, the claimed right of way was only contractual, not based on easement of necessity or prescription, and the plot had independent access under the sanctioned subdivision plan; interim injunction on access was therefore refused and that discretion was upheld. The governing principle was that a discretionary interlocutory finding will not be disturbed unless it is shown to be perverse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement was prima facie capable of specific enforcement, and whether the injunction could extend to the FSI/TDR contemplated by the agreement. (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to interim injunction in respect of the claimed right of way.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement was prima facie capable of specific enforcement, and whether the injunction could extend to the FSI/TDR contemplated by the agreement.

Analysis: The agreement had to be construed from its terms and surrounding material to determine its true character. At the interlocutory stage, the finding of the trial court that the arrangement was not merely one of security, but one capable of specific enforcement, was a plausible view and not shown to be perverse. FSI/TDR was treated as a benefit arising out of land and therefore as immovable property capable of being specifically enforced. The court further held that the respondents could not avoid the contractual obligation by treating the slum TDR component as outside the scope of enforceable rights, because the contract related to identifiable rights in the property and the balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoured protection.

Conclusion: The appellants succeeded on this issue. The clarification in the impugned order that curtailed protection in relation to the FSI/TDR was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to interim injunction in respect of the claimed right of way.

Analysis: The claimed access was not based on easement of necessity or prescription, but only on a contractual term. The plot had an independent access under the sanctioned subdivision plan, and the existence of an approved access meant that no interim irreparable prejudice was shown. On the facts, the refusal of interim relief on this aspect was a proper exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The appellants failed on this issue. The refusal of injunction regarding the right of way was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The order was interfered with only to the limited extent necessary to preserve the appellants' contractual rights in the FSI/TDR component of the property, while the denial of interim relief on access remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: FSI/TDR that constitutes a benefit arising out of land may be protected by specific enforcement, and an appellate court will not disturb a discretionary interlocutory finding unless it is perverse.

---