LAXMAN PANDU KHADKE Vs. PANDHARINATH PURUSHOTTAM RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the suit filed by the present respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for injunction against the defendant (present appellant) with view to protect his possession in respect of the suit land.

(2.) Facts are very simple. Admittedly, the suit land belonged to the defendant. By an agreement dated 31-5-1971 the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said land from the defendant for the total sum of Rs. 11,500/-. A sum of Rs. 8,500/- was paid as earnest money and it is now a finding recorded by the lower Appellate Court that the possession of the land was made over by the defendant to the plaintiff by way of part performance of the agreement. The land was agricultural land and one of the terms of the agreement, naturally, was that the permission for sale of the land was to be obtained by the parties from the Collector. It is the case of the plaintiff which is accepted by the Court below that an application was made by the plaintiff to the revenue authorities for the necessary permission for sale of the land. On the date fixed for the consideration of the application, the plaintiff even remained present before the revenue authority but the defendant played hookey and just choose not to remain present before the authority. The result was that the revenue authority had no other alternative but to pass an order to the effect that application was disposed of. The plaintiff thereafter wrote a registered letter to the defendant expressing his willingness to pay the balance of the amount and to take the conveyance from the defendant but all this correspondence turned futile and the plaintiff got information that the defendant was intending to transfer the land to some one else. Hence, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration about his right under the agreement and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession.

(3.) There was some dispute as regards the nature of the plaintiffs suit. The dispute is now set at rest because Mr. Sali has made a categorical statement before the Court that the plaintiff had confirmed his claim only to injunction, if not in the trial Court, at least in the Appeal Court. I will, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the suit was for injunction simplicitor.