CHENDER Vs. DHANPAL ALIAS DHARAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suit are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for bare . injunction on the strength of their alleged possession. The plaintiffs also came forward with a case that they were put in possession by virtue of an agreement for sale. The trial court decreed the suit and the lower appellate court concurred with the view taken by the trial court and, therefore, the defendants are before this Court in the second appeal. On 6.1.1982 the following question of law was framed by this Court:-

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. R.M. Sinha submitted that when the plaintiffs relied upon an agreement for sale their remedy is to file a suit for specific performance and for injunction and on the strength of the agreement for sale they cannot seek to pray for injunction and disturb the possession of the defendants with reference to the suit property. The learned counsel referred to the following rulings:- 1. M/s Pragati Steels & Anr. Vs. Harbhajan Singh & Ors. 1996(2) CLJ (C.Cr. & Rev) 354. 2. Jasmer Singh and others Vs. Kanwaljit Singh and another, AIR 1991 Punjab & Haryana 194. 3. Rajendra Kumar Vs. Mahendra Kumar Mittal and others, AIR 1992 Allahabad 35. 4. Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal s Devaji Supdu Dorik and others. AIR 1977 SC 1517. 5. M/s. Technicians Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Lila Ghosh and another, AIR 1977 SC 2425.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. R.S. Dewas submitted that the appellants did not raise any question relating to the suit for specific performance. The courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondents are in possession. The appellants being third parties to the agreement cannot claim that the proper remedy by the respondents is to file a suit for specific performance. The learned counsel submitted that the agreement and the sale deed which is not registered, relied upon by the respondents, for sustaining their possession could not be produced as they are not traceable.