RAJESWAR K. Vs. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN C. G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 1138 of 1994, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram have preferred this revision against the judgment dated 13th September 1995 in C.M.A. No. 84 of 1995 of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram which arose from the order dated 25th July 1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge in IA. No. 5046 of 1994 of the said suit. By the impugned judgment, the petitioners have been restrained from selling the plaint schedule property to anyone except respondent No. 1, who is the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants from alienating, transferring or creating any charge or otherwise in respect of B schedule property to any person other than the plaintiff in violation of the terms of the agreement. It is stated by him that the property belongs to the first defendant Sri K. Rajeswar (first petitioner herein) and the second petitioner is his power of attorney holder. They intended to sell away the property. Out of the total extent of 26 cents, 19 cents of land described in B schedule of the plaint was proposed to be sold to the plaintiff (first respondent herein) for a consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs and the other portion of 7 cents of land, more particularly described in C schedule of the plaint was proposed to be sold to the daughter of the third defendant for a consideration of Rs. 5 lakhs. Accordingly, the second defendant entered into an agreement with him for sale of the land.

(3.) It is alleged that being instructed by defendants 2 and 3 the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the account of the first petitioner in S.B. A/c No C. 2186, State Bank of India, Indira Nagar Branch, Bangalore on 6th January 1994 and subsequently paid a sum of Rs. two lakhs as part payment towards the consideration of the sale. He was given the photostat copies of the title deeds by the defendants to facilitate the execution of the sale deed as agreed to. The plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale price and to have the sale deed executed. But, later he understood that defendants 1 and 2 are reluctant to execute the sale deed as agreed upon. Moreover, they are trying to alienate the property to strangers in violation of the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed on payment of the balance consideration to defendants 1 and 2.