SAROJINI JAIN Vs. D K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, issuing a temporary injunction against the appellant and restraining the appellant from selling plot no. 113/11 and the building constructed thereon in Navyug Market, Ghaziabad to any other person except the plaintiff-respondents or to give possession to the said third person transferee till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed a suit before the lower court seeking relief of prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing the property in question to any outsider for any consideration except to the plaintiff. THE plaintiffs alleged that they are closely related with each other and the defendant. THE Ghaziabad Development Authority had invited tenders for commercial-cum-residential plot. THE defendant and the plaintiffs had submitted their tenders. After the tenders were accepted by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, the plaintiffs were allotted plot no. 113/12 and the defendant was allotted plot no. 113/11. It was alleged that at the time of submitting the tenders and getting the lease deed executed in favour of the respective parties in respect of the plots in question mentioned above, it was agreed between the parties that if any one of them intends to sell his plot then the same will be sold to the other party. It was also agreed that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant shall be entitled to dispose of or sell the plots or the building standing thereon to any other outsider. In pursuance of this agreement, constructions were raised on two plots in such a manner that from the very appearance it transpires that the constructions are one and not separate. THE defendant appellant being an old lady and having only one daughter (who is married) had intended to sell her property for Rs. 7, 50,000/- to plaintiff no. 1 with the consent of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and also of her daughter. In consideration thereof the defendant received Rs. 25000/- on 1-6-1988 and Rs. 1,25,000/- on 30-6-1988. In respect of these money transactions, the defendant had issued receipts on chit of papers. THE plaintiffs having great faith in defendant accepted the said receipts on plain papers just as a token of receipt of the money. It was also agreed that the amount of rupees six lacs would be paid to the defendant at the time of execution of the sale- deed, which was decided to be executed upto 30th May, 1989. Prior to that date the defendant was to get all legal permission i. e. permission of Ghaziabad Development Authority, Income-tax certificate etc THE defendant is alleged to have fallen under the influence of one Dharampal son of Sri Shyam Lal who has animosity against the plaintiffs. THE defendant was given some allurement and thus is intending to sell her property to the outsider Dharampal. On these facts, the prayer had been made for issue of a temporary injunction against the defendant-appellant.

(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no evidence on record about the time, place and manner of execution of the alleged agreement. There is no mention in the said agreement as to what was the price to be offered and whether the price offered by a third party was to be the price paid by either of the parties. IT was further urged that, from a reading of the plaint, it transpires that the first agreement regarding creation of pre-emptive right was created in 1968 and the contract for agreement to sell was arrived at between the parties in 1988. IT was urged that none of these contracts are in writing. IT was urged that none of these agreements were enforceable. Therefore, the lower court, it was urged, had erred in issuing the injunction order.