Prima facie specific performance claim and notice to subsequent transferee justified interim restraint over suit property.

In a suit for specific performance, a prima facie contractual foundation was accepted for interim protection where the alleged agreement showed operative effect through the defendant's subsequent conduct, and the unstamped nature of the document did not defeat relief at the interim stage. The court also considered the position of a later transferee against the doctrines of bona fide purchase without notice, lis pendens, and equitable protection. On the facts, a prima facie inference of notice justified restraint against further dealings with the property to preserve the suit subject-matter pending trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for interim protection in a suit for specific performance despite the defence that the document was only a term sheet and was unstamped; (ii) whether the fourth defendant, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, was entitled to protection against restraint orders in respect of the suit property.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for interim protection in a suit for specific performance despite the defence that the document was only a term sheet and was unstamped.

Analysis: The agreement of 13 February 2007 was treated as having prima facie operative effect because the first defendant's subsequent conduct, including reliance on forum-selection clauses and its response to the plaintiff's letter enclosing consideration, was inconsistent with a denial of any concluded arrangement. The objection based on non-stamping did not defeat interim relief at this stage because an unstamped document could still be dealt with in accordance with law at trial. The Court therefore found a sufficiently arguable contractual foundation for the suit.

Conclusion: The plaintiff established a prima facie case in support of interim relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the fourth defendant, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, was entitled to protection against restraint orders in respect of the suit property.

Analysis: The protection available to a transferee for value without notice under section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the equitable principles reflected in section 91 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 was considered alongside the doctrine of lis pendens under section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts, the fourth defendant's assertion of bona fides without an express denial of notice, together with the surrounding circumstances, was held to raise a prima facie inference of notice. Since further alienation would create third-party interests and complicate the suit, interim restraint was justified, though confined for a limited period.

Conclusion: The fourth defendant was restrained from transferring, encumbering, or otherwise dealing with the property, subject to the limited duration fixed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted to preserve the suit property and prevent further third-party interests, while the suit was directed to proceed expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, a subsequent transferee may be restrained by interim injunction where the plaintiff shows a prima facie contractual claim and a prima facie absence of bona fide purchase without notice, even though the transferee asserts title and the operative equitable protections must ultimately be tested at trial.

---