Interlocutory injunctions must balance hardship and preserve disputed property through tailored conditional relief, not blanket restraint.

Interlocutory injunctions must satisfy the settled tests of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and a blanket restraint should not be maintained where it causes disproportionate hardship. The Court noted that the plaintiffs' entitlement and the disputed status of Nirmala remained issues for trial, and that rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application did not determine interim relief. Finding that the lower courts had not properly weighed comparative prejudice, it narrowed the restraint and approved conditional safeguards such as disclosure to purchasers, deposit of sale proceeds and protection of commercial receipts pending trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the courts below correctly applied the settled tests for grant of interlocutory injunction, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. (ii) Whether the restraint on dealing with the properties required modification having regard to the disputed share, the commercial use of the property and the need to protect the competing interests of the parties.

Issue (i): Whether the courts below correctly applied the settled tests for grant of interlocutory injunction, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Analysis: The grant of temporary injunction requires a serious question to be tried together with consideration of balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The materials showed that the plaintiffs' claim and the nature of Nirmala's status were still matters for trial, and the question of her entitlement could not be treated as conclusively established at the interim stage. The earlier rejection of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not foreclose consideration of the merits for interlocutory relief. The courts below, however, did not adequately address the comparative hardship likely to be caused to the appellants if the properties remained completely blocked from use.

Conclusion: The injunction had been granted without a proper application of the governing principles and required interference.

Issue (ii): Whether the restraint on dealing with the properties required modification having regard to the disputed share, the commercial use of the property and the need to protect the competing interests of the parties.

Analysis: The Court treated the plaintiffs' claim as, at the highest, a limited prima facie interest and considered that the properties had remained unused for long periods, causing potential prejudice to the appellants. At the same time, the plaintiffs' interest could be safeguarded by permitting limited alienation and by directing disclosure to purchasers, deposit of sale proceeds in fixed deposit and protection of funds pending the suit. Similar balancing was adopted for the commercial property by allowing letting out with deposit of a portion of the receipts and appointment of a receiver if necessary.

Conclusion: The restraint was modified and limited protective directions were issued instead of a blanket injunction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part, the sweeping injunction was narrowed, and the parties' interests were protected by conditional directions pending trial.

Ratio Decidendi: An interlocutory injunction must be tested on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, and where a blanket restraint would cause disproportionate hardship, the court may tailor conditional protective relief to preserve the subject matter pending trial.

---