MUKESH Vs. DEONARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous appeal arises out of order dt. 12-2-1986, refusing ad interim injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff-appellant restraining defendant-respondent 1 from transferring his 1/9th share in the suit land to defendant 10 and restraining defendant-respondents 2 to 9 from consenting to any such transfer or parting with its possession or altering the situation of the suit land as it existed on the date of the suit, seeking further injunction to restrain the defendant 10 from altering or changing or making construction on the 1/9th share of the land agreed to be sold to the plaintiff and also praying for a direction to maintain the status quo.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant, who is a minor, through his natural guardian the mother, Laxmibai, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dt. 14-12-1982, entered into by defendant 1 to sell the 1/9th share of the suit land, bearing survey No. 3842, situated in Kasba Ujjain, for Rs. 35,000/- out of which Rs. 4000/- were paid by the plaintiff appellant as earnest money. The other co-sharers, defendants 2 to 9 also consented to this agreement by signing the same. One of the terms of the agreement provided that on a breach committed by defendant 1, the plaintiff will be entitled to claim specific performance of the agreement. It is also stated that defendant 1 obtained Rs. 2000/- from the plaintiff-appellant on 16-6-1984. Thus, the total amount received by him under the agreement is Rs. 6000/-. It is the plaintiff appellant's case that as a result of a public-notice published in the local press on 17-9-1984, he came to know that the suit land was being purchased by defendant 10. He, therefore, served a notice dt. 19-9-1984 on the defendants reminding them of the agreement dt. 14-12-1982 and called upon them for specific performance of the contract. Defendants Kesharbai, Satyanarayan and Kailash executed a sale deed in favour of defendant-respondent 10 on 3-10-1985. The plaintiff-appellant, therefore, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement and applied for an ad interim injunction, which was opposed by the defendant-respondent on the ground that there was a prior agreement made in favour of Rameshchandra by defendants 1 to 9 on 17-11-1982 and that being the prior agreement, the plaintiff could not enforce his agreement against defendant-respondents. It was also contended that the contract being by a minor, whose natural guardian being his father, the contract entered into by the mother Laxmibai, was not a valid contract. It was also alleged that the plaintiff-appellant committed breach as he failed in getting the NOC from the Competent Authority under the Ceiling Act.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's application for an ad interim injunction upholding the objection raised by the defendant-respondent. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant.