Authority: Bombay High Court, Goa Bench

Order Date: 4 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: Diana Buildwell Private Limited (original Defendant No. 1) represented by Mr. Ajit Luthra.
  • Respondent No. 1: Sterling Holidays Resorts (India) Limited (Plaintiff). Respondents No. 2‑5: Yes Bank Ltd, The Saraswat Co‑op. Bank Ltd, Vijaya Bank Ltd, Starwood Hotels & Resorts India Pvt Ltd (Defendants No. 2‑5).
  • The appeal challenges an order dated 09‑08‑2024 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, granting a temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 11/2015/A.
  • The injunction restrained Defendant No. 1 from dealing with, altering, or parting with the suit property, and barred Defendant No. 2 (Yes Bank) from releasing title documents without court permission.
  • The dispute centres on a Deed of Sale dated 11‑05‑2007 transferring four parcels of land (plus agricultural parcels) from the Plaintiff to Defendant No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs 49,11,00,000/‑.
  • Clause 9 of the Deed stipulates an additional amount of Rs 6,00,00,000/‑ payable if the Plaintiff renews a construction licence (renewed on 17‑07‑2007). The Plaintiff claims this creates a seller’s lien under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.
  • The Plaintiff filed the suit on 22‑02‑2015, after an eight‑year gap from the licence renewal, and only issued a legal notice on 03‑10‑2012, followed by a reply from Defendant No. 1 on 20‑10‑2012 and a rejoinder on 10‑05‑2013.
  • On 23‑12‑2013, Defendant No. 1 executed a mortgage deed in favour of a consortium of banks (Defendants No. 2‑4), creating a charge over the suit property.
  • The Plaintiff alleges a prior charge in its favour under Clause 9, seeking to restrain further mortgages and possession transfers.
  • The Trial Court’s order partially granted the injunction (prayers a, b, d) and rejected others (c, e, f), relying heavily on a 02‑06‑2020 Supreme Court judgment in Civil Revision Application No. 39/2015, which dealt with a rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, not an interlocutory injunction.
  • The Appellant contended that the Trial Court failed to consider the plaintiff’s delay, laches, and the proper test for granting an injunction (prima‑facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury).
  • Respondent No. 1 argued that Clause 8 and Clause 9 create a specific lien, citing the same Supreme Court judgment, and that the Trial Court correctly applied the law.
  • Counsel for Defendant No. 3 emphasized that the mortgage created under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act gave the banks a valid charge, and that the Deed of Sale contains no reservation of rights for the seller.
  • The Court examined the statutory provisions of Sections 55 and 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, the content of the Deed, and the principle that a seller’s lien arises only if expressly reserved.
  • The Court found that the Deed’s clauses (1‑5, especially sub‑clauses f‑h of Clause 5) expressly state that the seller retained no rights, title, or lien, and that the full consideration of Rs 49,11,00,000/‑ was paid and stamped.
  • Clause 9’s additional amount was not part of the sale consideration and did not create a contract to the contrary; therefore, no seller’s lien existed.
  • The Court highlighted the plaintiff’s eight‑year inaction (delay and laches) and the lack of any pleading or evidence showing knowledge of the 2013 mortgage, rendering the plaintiff’s claim untenable.
  • The Court concluded that the Trial Court had not applied the “triple test” for interlocutory injunctions and had improperly relied on a judgment pertaining to Order 7 Rule 11.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court quashed and set aside the temporary injunction order dated 09‑08‑2024.
  • All related civil applications (Misc. Civil Application Nos. 96/2024, 92/2025, 475/2024) were disposed of without any order as to costs.
  • A request by Respondent No. 1 for a stay of the impugned order was rejected.

Topics: Court Injunction, Property Law, Seller’s Lien