KRISHNA GOVIND GAIKAR Vs. MANOHARLAL D RUPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 1981 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay, on Notice of Motion No. 737 of 1981 dated 12th February, 1981 taken out by the plaintiff in S.C. Suit No. 691 of 1981.

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") filed S.C. Suit No. 691 in the Bombay, City Civil Court against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendants") for specific performance of an agreement dated 23rd January, 1978 whereby the defendant No. 1 is alleged to have agreed to sell 224 square yards of land out of Survey No. 357 situate at Sindhi Society, 8th Road, Chembur, Bombay 400071. The plaintiff averred that the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land admeasuring 224 square yards marked in red boundary on the sketch, annexed to the plaint and market Exhibit B, to him for Rs. 9,000/- and that he received Rs. 4,500/- and the remaining consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant on his making out marketable and clear title to the plot and on his executing a deed of conveyance in respect of the said plot in favour of the plaintiff. A copy of the writing evidencing the said contract is annexed to the plaint and market Exhibit A. The Plaintiff further averred that the defendant No. 1 put the plaintiff in possession of the land in suit which he had agreed to sell him in pursuance of the agreement for sale. He further averred that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the defendant No. 1 avoided to perform his part of the contract. He further averred that the defendant No. 1 acted dishonestly and fraudulently and after he put up some construction on the plot in suit complained to the municipal authorities against the said construction and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay pulled down the construction being unauthorised. He also averred that the defendant No. 1 after entering into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit land to him entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 2 for sale of the whole plot bearing Survey No. 357. The plaintiff also averred that the defendant No. 1 was interfering with his possession over the suit land and, therefore, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession. On those averments the plaintiff claimed specific performance of the agreement for sale in his favour and also claimed a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his possession on the plot of land marked in red boundary on the sketch Ex. E to the plaint.

(3.) The plaintiff took out a Notice of Motion and claimed a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from entering on the suit land and disturbing his possession thereof.