BHAWARI DEVI ACHA Vs. ANJUGAM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the applicant herein. She has filed the above application for interim injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from in any manner dealing with the plaint schedule properly by sale or otherwise pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit for the following reliefs: (a) To execute and register a sale deed conveying the property described in the schedule to the plaint in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the agreement dated 13. 7. 1990 and in default directing an officer of the court to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff' (b) To deliver possession of the suit schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff' (c) To pay damages of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff' (d) To pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiff'and (e) To grant such further or other relief to the plaintiff as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) THE plaintiff sent a lawyer''s notice dated 13. 10. 1991 to the 1st defendant with copies to defendants 2 and 3. A reply dated 24. 10. 1991 was sent on behalf of the 1st defendant. While admitting the agreement, the 1st defendant put forward false claims and offered to return the amount of Rs. 2,68,500 with interest within a period of one year. THE plaintiff sent a rejoinder dated 1. 11. 1991 through her lawyer reiterating her earlier demand. THE plaintiff later came to know that in or about the last week of April, 1992, the 2nd defendant has been granted probate in respect of the said Will. Hence, the plaintiff, with a view to enforce her rights and claims under the sale agreement dated 13. 7. 1990, sent a lawyer''s notice dated 6. 6. 1992 to the 1st defendant offering to pay the balance sale consideration and calling upon the 1st defendant to execute and register a sale deed and also sent copies of the said notice to defendants 2 and 3. A reply dated 25. 6. 1992 was sent by the 1st defendant on 25. 6. 1992 through her lawyer refusing to comply with the demands alleging that she is not entitled to the said property and that the same has been allotted to the 3rd defendant in the probate proceedings. According to the plaintiff, the settle-ment alleged to have been reached by defendants 1 and 2 with the 3rd defendant and with certain other persons in T. O. S. No. 15 of 1990 with the knowledge of the sale agreement dated 13. 7. 1990 in favour of the plaintiff, is collusive, fraudulent, invalid and unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiff, the plaintiff submits that the sale agreement being long prior to the alleged settlement in the probate proceedings, the defendants herein, who have been put on notice of the same, are bound by the terms of the sale agreement and the said arrangement is, therefore, only subject to the rights and claims of the plaintiff under the sale agreement dated 13. 7. 1990.