B L ANJAIAH Vs. P JAYASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner heiein, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale and for delivery of possession pursuant thereto, and pending the suit an interim injunction was sought for, though two years after the suit was filed. THE first Court basing upon revenue records and other evidence held that prima facie possession has been established by the plaintiff, and therefore, granted the injunction prayed for. On appeal, the appellate Court relying on a decision of the Madras High Court in Aboobucker vs. Kimhamoo, held that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should not be allowed to take shelter under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and even if possession was given pursuant to the agreement, relief of injunction should not be granted, and accordingly reversed the finding of the trial Court. THE same view was to doubt been taken in another decision of the Madras High Court in Krishnamurty vs. Paramasiva. I apprehend, with great respect to their Lordships of the Madras High Court it is bard for me to pursuade myself to be in line with the view taken in those decisions. It is indeed typical to apprehend why a person who entered into an agreement of sale and was delivered possession of the property pursuant thereto and was enjoying the same and if the terms of the agreement are not implemented and a suit is filed for specific performance of the sale and pending the same, cannot seek an injunction. It is true that an agreement of sale does not confer any title. But when the defendant disputes the agreement of sale as well as possession, it is not uncommon, pending the suit on the basis of the twin principles of prima facie case and balance of convenience why not the plaintiff be grgnted interim injunction if the twin principles are adjudged in his favour. THErefcre, in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff will be entitled to an injunction, in case, it is prayed for pending the suit if he is able to establish prima facie case as well as balance of convenience in his favour which are sine qua non for grant of an injunction.

(2.) HENCE, the order under revision is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Pending disposal of the suit there will be an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. No costs. The trial Court will dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order without taking cognizance of the observations made herein or being influenced by the same.