PUNIT BERIWALA Vs. SUVA SANYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff, is directed against an order dated 27th March, 1997 whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge refused to grant an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The fact of the matter is as follows :

(2.) The defendant No. 2 allegedly entered into an agreement with the defendant No. 1 who is, admittedly, the owner of the suit premises who was in possession thereof till 7th March, 1995 whereafter she had shifted to another flat. The defendant No. 2 also entered into agreements with the tenants who had been occupying the premises in question in terms whereof they had surrendered their respective tenancies. A plan for construction of a multi-storeyed building upon demolition of the old structures was also sanctioned by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation on 5th of August, 1996. Allegedly, the defendant No. 2 approached the plaintiff on 19th July, 1996 for sale of the suit premises on representation that he was authorised therefor. On 20th July, 1996, allegedly, an agreement was entered into by and between the parties pursuant whereto a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh) was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 in presence of the defendant No. 1. The said payment was made against the payment of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) at the time of execution of the formal agreement. Allegedly, at the instance of one Jayanta Mukherjee, certain papers were also handed over by the defendant No. 2. Thereafter, a draft agreement, as contained in Annexure 'A' to the plaint was prepared. According to the plaintiff, although, he was, at all material times, was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendants had failed and neglected to take any steps for execution of the agreement and to execute the Deed of Conveyance in terms of the said draft agreement. The defendant No. 1, who is the owner of the property, categorically denied and disputed that he had ever entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or for that matter, the defendant No. 2 was authorised. The defendant No. 1 further categorically denied and disputed that there had been any transaction including the passing of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2. It is stated that so far as the Title Deeds are concerned, the broker of the plaintiff might have come across one of the xerox copies but this, by itself, cannot give any credence to the story of the plaintiff that an Agreement for Sale had been entered into. Defendant No. 2 also categorically denied and disputed all the allegations of the plaintiff to the hilt (and) stated that during his activities as a building-developer one Gautam Mukherjee came to his office as a professional broker but the plea that he had been looking for a flat and defendant No. 2 without making any commitment, agreed to find out a flat or apartment for the plaintiff. According to the said defendant he could never imagine that he would engineer the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to find out such a mythical story as cooked up in the plaint and in the application for injunction.

(3.) For the purpose of disposal of this appeal it is not necessary to state in details the other statements made by the defendant No. 2 in his written statement and/or affidavit-in-opposition as the same have been stated in details by the learned trial Jude himself. The learned trial Judge, upon consideration of the materials on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, inter alia, arrived at the following conclusions :