Breach of injunction invalidates alienation and can raise a substantial question of law on second appeal

An injunction passed by a court with jurisdiction remains binding until it is vacated or otherwise ceases in law, so an alienation made in deliberate breach of that restraint is not legally effective and may be treated as unlawful. The legality of such a transfer also raises a real question of law affecting the parties' rights, so it cannot be rejected as lacking a substantial question of law. The summary dismissal of the second appeal was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal after framing the appropriate substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an alienation made during the subsistence of an injunction order is legally effective and can be treated as binding. (ii) Whether the second appeal involved a substantial question of law so as to justify interference with the High Court's summary dismissal and require remand for fresh disposal.

Issue (i): Whether an alienation made during the subsistence of an injunction order is legally effective and can be treated as binding.

Analysis: An interim injunction, when passed by a court having jurisdiction to grant such relief, remains operative and must be obeyed until it is vacated or otherwise ceases in law. The fact that the suit is later found to have been returned or that jurisdiction is ultimately questioned does not render the injunction non est for the period during which it was in force. A transfer made in breach of such an injunction does not acquire legal sanctity, and the agreement or conveyance may also be hit by the principle that an object forbidden by law is unlawful.

Conclusion: The sale deed executed in breach of the injunction was not legally effective and was liable to be treated as unlawful.

Issue (ii): Whether the second appeal involved a substantial question of law so as to justify interference with the High Court's summary dismissal and require remand for fresh disposal.

Analysis: The legality of a sale executed in violation of an operative injunction raised a real question of law bearing directly on the rights of the parties. Such an issue could not be dismissed as lacking a substantial question of law. The High Court therefore erred in summarily rejecting the second appeal without framing and deciding the appropriate substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The matter did involve a substantial question of law, and the summary dismissal by the High Court was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the second appeal was sent back for fresh decision after framing the appropriate substantial question of law.

Ratio Decidendi: An injunction order passed by a court having jurisdiction remains binding while in force, and an alienation made in deliberate breach of that order lacks legal efficacy; such a question can constitute a substantial question of law under the second appeal jurisdiction.

---