SUVRA SAHA Vs. VINOD KUNDALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two grounds which are urged by the appellants in challenging an interlocutory order of injunction in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of a piece of land are that the trial court failed to take into account that the agreement was insufficiently stamped and the trial court passed a blanket order without imposing any condition on the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendant-appellants claim to have filed their written statement in the suit. It is submitted that the defence in the written statement is that the agreement was never executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and that no money had changed hands. In any event, it is pointed out that it is the plaintiff's case that a sum of only Rs.2 lakh was paid in cash against the purported agreed consideration of Rs.1.27 crore for about half an acre of land off the highway in Madhyamgram just beyond the northern fringes of the city.

(3.) An ad interim order of injunction of similar nature was previously challenged by the defendants, whereupon the same issues were raised. Since the injunction application had not been finally decided by the trial court, the previous order of this court of November 17, 2017 refused to conclusively address the question as to insufficient stamp duty and left the question of imposing conditions to the trial court at the time of deciding the matter finally. The matter has now been decided by the judgment and order impugned dated July 31, 2018 and an unconditional injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff.