RAMA ALIAS RAMALAL Vs. BADRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 has come up in miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC against an order, dated 19-9-2002, passed by learned Vth Additional District Judge, Ujjain in C. S. No. 57-A of 2002, whereby an application made by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking injunction is allowed. The short question is, whether Lower Court was justified in allowing it.

(2.) ON the strength of an agreement, dated 17-7-1997, the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) has filed a suit for specific performance of contract for purchase of suit land (1. 882 Hectares ). The suit is filed on 13-6-2002. It is alleged inter alia that defendants who are father and sons (defendant No. 1 is the father and 2, 3 and 4 are sons) have agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. It is alleged that out of Rs. 1,80,000/-the plaintiffs have paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- in cash and accordingly, plaintiff was placed in possession of the suit land. It is then alleged that balance of Rs. 48,000/- was to be paid in 10 years by instalment of Rs. 500/ -. It is alleged that on 21-4-2002, the defendants made attempt to disturb plaintiff's possession over the suit land and hence, notice dated 8-5-2002 was served on the defendants followed by suit to claim specific performance. It is in this suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction claiming that since he is in possession of suit land, his possession be not disturbed. The defendants filed their reply. They have come out with a case of total denial. According to them and in particular defendant No. 1 (father) he has not entered into any agreement, with the plaintiff, nor does the agreement bears his signature. He claimed to be in possession of the land since beginning. Parties then filed affidavits of some persons to support their case to show that they are in possession of the suit land. The Trial Court allowed the application in favour of plaintiff and granted injunction holding plaintiff to be in possession of the land. It is against this order, the defendant No. 1 (father of defendant Nos. 2 to 4) is in appeal.

(3.) HEARD Shri Manoj Manav, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R. C. Chhajed, learned Counsel for the respondents.