YAKUB Vs. BAJABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-plaintiffs have filed this Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 18.9.1998 passed in Civil Suit No. 58-A/96 by Fifth Additional District Judge, Indore, whereby the trial Court rejected application for temporary injunction of the appellants-plaintiffs.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 1.8.1996 appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract and also for permanent injunction on the allegation that by written agreement dated 14.5.1995 respondents No. 1 to 6 have agreed to sell their agricultural land bearing Survey No. 64/2 area 1.234 hectares and Survey No. 104/2 area 0.151 hectares to the plaintiffs and respondent No. 9. They have been put in actual physical possession over the said land in view of the part performance of the contract to sell. They have paid Rs. 4,00,000/- as earnest money and the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale-deed in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs. No specific date or period for completing the contract was mentioned in the agreement. It was to be executed at the convenience of the parties. Thereafter they had sown Soyabeen crop and subsequently wheat crop in the year 1995-96 and their crop is standing on the field. Alongwith the plaint they have also filed an application for temporary injunction. The temporary ex-parte injunction was initially refused and notices were directed to be issued. On 5.8.1996 Mr. Hardiya, Advocate appeared for respondents-defendants No. 7 and 8 and filed his power and prayed for time to file reply of the application. The case was adjourned for 22.8.1996 with a direction that till the next date of hearing, the defendants shall not create any obstruction in the possession of the plaintiffs. Thereafter respondents-defendants No. 7 and 8 have filed reply of the injunction application of 21.8.1997 as well as writteh-statement denying the suit allegations. Prior to that on 22.8.1996 they have filed an application for supply of the copies of the documents.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 7 and 8 also filed reply of the injunction application on 23.9.1996 and in reply the submission of respondents No. 7 and 8 was that on 15.5.1996 they have purchased this land by virtue of registered sale-deed and the sellers defendants-respondents No. 1 to 6 have also put them in possession. Thereafter by order dated 8.10.1996 the land has been mutated in the name of respondents No. 7 and 8 and the Tehsildar has also rejected the objections raised by the plaintiffs. In the sale-deed dated 15.5.1996 it has been mentioned that the sellers have handed over the actual and physical possession to the purchasers-defendants No. 7 and 8 in presence of the witnesses. Against the order of mutation passed by the Tehsildar, the plaintiffs also preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and by order dated 4.6.1997 the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected their appeal.