Breach of injunction in property transfer can justify treating the sale as void and restoring status quo ante

A transfer executed in deliberate breach of subsisting injunction and status quo orders was treated as void ab initio and not binding, and the Court held it could restore the status quo ante through its inherent powers without requiring contempt proceedings. A bare restraint against alienation did not create a charge over the flat because there was no obligation to pay money out of the property, and the objection that cancellation relief exceeded the plaint was rejected. The offending agreement was set aside, cancellation was directed, and possession was ordered through the Court Receiver.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an agreement for sale executed in breach of injunction and status quo orders could be treated as void and cancelled. (ii) Whether the earlier restraint orders created a charge on the subject flat or the relief sought was beyond the scope of the suit.

Issue (i): Whether an agreement for sale executed in breach of injunction and status quo orders could be treated as void and cancelled.

Analysis: The restraint order recorded the defendants' undertaking not to deal with the properties during the pendency of the suit, and the later status quo order required the parties to maintain the existing position until further orders. A subsequent criminal order setting aside attachment did not dilute those civil restraint orders. The transfer made in the face of those subsisting directions was therefore in violation of court orders. In such circumstances, the Court could exercise its inherent powers to restore the status quo ante and treat the offending transaction as having not taken place, without insisting on contempt proceedings.

Conclusion: The agreement for sale was void ab initio, illegal, and not binding on the plaintiff, and cancellation was rightly directed.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier restraint orders created a charge on the subject flat or the relief sought was beyond the scope of the suit.

Analysis: A bare undertaking or restraint against alienation does not create a charge on property in the absence of an obligation to pay money out of that property. The suit and the interim orders were considered together by the Court in granting protective relief, and the later direction to cancel the offending transfer followed from the breach of the existing orders. The objection that the relief exceeded the plaint was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: No charge arose over the subject flat, and the relief granted was within the Court's jurisdiction in the pending suit.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the plaintiff's challenge, set aside the offending agreement, directed cancellation and delivery of possession through the Court Receiver, and declined to stay the operation of the order.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer made in deliberate breach of a subsisting injunction or status quo order confers no enforceable right and may be neutralised by the Court through its inherent powers to restore the prior position.

---