MADHAB CHANDRA BASU Vs. SAFIKUL MOLLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge has been preferred by the defendant in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for sale, for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge granted ad-interim injunction against the defendant/present appellant and his men, agents and assigns from transferring, alienating, changing the nature and character, encumbering and/or creating any third party interest in respect of the suit property for a limited period.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant argues that the learned Trial Judge was debarred by law from passing such order on the basis of an unstamped and unregistered agreement. Apart from the fact that the agreement pleaded was oral and did not give rise to a concluded contract, it is contended that for obtaining an order of injunction, it is mandatory that an agreement for sale has to be stamped properly and registered. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant cites several judgments which we are dealing with as follows:-

(3.) The first judgment cited is in the matter of Yellapu Uma Maheswari vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao reported at 2016 (2) CHN (SC) 28. However, we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that the said judgment is a binding precedent in the present matter.