HARI OM SHARMA Vs. HANUMAN PRASAD PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal From Order has been directed by the plaintiff-appellant against the order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras in Original Suit No. 56 of 2014 (Hari Om Sharma vs. Hanuman Prasad Poddar) whereby application No. 7 Ga for grant of temporary injunction has been rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a Suit No.56 of 2014. The case set up in the Plaint is that an oral agreement was entered into between the plaintiff-appellant and the defendant- respondent to sell the disputed properties, shown as 'Schedule A', 'Schedule B' and 'Schedule C' in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on a consideration of Rupees seventeen lakh regarding the property shown in Schedule 'B' , for Rupees one crore twenty six lakh regarding the property shown in Schedule 'A' and for Rupees six lakh regarding the property shown in Schedule 'C'. Against the total consideration amount, Rupees seventy lakh regarding the property described in Schedule 'A', Rupees ten lakh regarding the property described in Schedule 'B' and Rupees four lakh regarding the property described in Schedule 'C' has been paid in advance by the plaintiff-appellant to the defendant-respondent, for which, the defendant-respondent has given acknowledgement and has handed over possession surrendering his ownership over the disputed properties. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant is the sole owner in possession of the disputed properties. The defendant-respondent has also agreed to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant after obtaining the balance amount. The plaintiff-appellant has requested time and again to execute the sale -deed in his favour but the defendant-respondent did not agree for the same and on 28.1.2014 threatened to the plaintiff-appellant to dispossess him from the disputed properties. It is also the case of the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant-respondent is trying to execute sale-deed of the disputed properties in favour of some other persons and is denying to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, on the basis of this cause of action, the aforesaid suit was filed before the Court below praying for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent regarding the disputed properties restraining the defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant and interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff-appellant.

(3.) An application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the plaintiff-appellant to issue interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant during pendency of the suit restraining the defendant-respondent to sell the disputed properties to other person and also from dispossessing the plaintiff-appellant from the disputed properties.The defendant-respondent filed an objection in the said suit.