E JAYARAM Vs. LAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal coming up for admission is admitted and by consent of the Counsel, taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE Appellant contends that the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of respondent no. 1 is denied. However, the construction of a house was at the instance of the appellant himself and submits that respondent No. 2 in fact has been inducted by the appellant himself and hence the suit filed by respondent No. 1 is false and frivolous and alleges that respondent No. 2 is in fact a tenant under the appellant.

(3.) PER contra, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that an agreement of sale in fact has been executed and possession has been delivered under the said agreement. Since there was a legal embargo and it is a fact that though possession was delivered, the sale transaction was not completed and respondent was always ready and willing to complete the sale transaction and with the full knowledge of the appellant constructed the suit property and at the time when respondent No. 1 had inducted respondent No. 2 as a tenant, the appellant interfered claiming that respondent No. 2 is a tenant under the appellant and not under her. That the suit property has been constructed by her and not by the appellant and a suit has been filed claiming that in terms of Section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act, 1882, the second respondent is entitled to be protected. The Trial Court, prima facie, has found that even according to the appellant, respondent No. 2 being in possession, the possession of respondent No. 2 has to be protected and therefore granted an order of injunction and this Court may not interfere with it unless it is demonstrated that the Court has acted arbitraritly or capriciously committed a palpable legal error in granting the order of temporary injunction.