N THANGAMANI Vs. S DURAIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance in C. S. No. 797/05. Pending the suit, he filed O. A. Nos. 5256 and 878/05 seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering or disturbing with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property described in the schedule by the plaintiff in any manner by trespassing, alienating, encumbering or otherwise dealing with it or any part thereof pending disposal of the suit. By impugned order dated 7th March, 2006, learned single Judge passed the following interim order :-i) The plaintiff has been allowed to continue in the shop, in which he is a tenant, but he has been directed to pay the rent of the shop till the disposal of the suit; ii) Insofar as the interim injunction is concerned, the Court granted interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property; and iii) The defendant has also been restrained from interfering with the possession of plaintiff in respect of shop in which plaintiff is the tenant. So far as the other shops are concerned, the defendant complained that the plaintiff has locked them after passing of the interim order. In this background, the Court directed the plaintiff to remove the lock and to hand over possession of the other shops to the defendant immediately.

(2.) ACCORDING to plaintiff, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 10th Oct. , 2003 in respect of the building consisting of four shops. Consideration amount of Rs. 22 Lakhs was fixed. On the date of agreement, the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of one shop and a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid. Subsequently, another agreement was entered into between the parties on 10th March, 2005 in respect of the same property and for the same consideration pursuant to which possession of another shop was also handed over to the plaintiff and, thus, he remained in possession of two shops. Further case of plaintiff was that in order to purchase the defendant's property, he had to sell his property apart from taking loan from provident fund account for making advance payment. Inspite of this, according to the plaintiff, he was willing to pay the balance consideration in order to show his bona fide and he deposited a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs as directed by the Court while interim injunction was granted. It was alleged that during the pendency of the suit, attempts were made by defendant to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and, thus, he apprehended that the defendant is likely to alienate the property. If the property is allowed to be alienated, even after decree for specific performance is passed, he will not get the fruit of it. This will lead to multiplicity of proceeding and so he sought for interim injunction.

(3.) THE case of the defendant before the trial court as also before this Court is that the agreement dated 10th March, 2005, relied on by plaintiff was obtained by coercion and undue influence. The question relating to validity of agreement, which would lead for granting relief for specific performance, is required to be decided at the time of trial and not at the initial stage. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant submitted that the building consisting of four shops and that plaintiff is a tenant in one of the shops. The plaintiff, in fact, locked the other shops after interim injunction was granted by this court. It was denied that possession was handed over to plaintiff pursuant to agreement dated 10th March, 2005, which was alleged to have been obtained by coercion and undue influence.