DR. LAXMINARAYAN MOHAPATRA Vs. MANJULATA MAHASUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sole point involved in this revision application is whether refusal of prayer for ad interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract is justified.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects as stated by the parties would suffice. Petitioner as plaintiff has filed Title Suit No. 376 of 1993 where the opposite party figures as defendant no. 2. Plaintiff's case in the suit and in the application for injunction as made under Order 39, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the CPC') and section 151 thereof is that the land in question originally belonged to Puri Municipality which was leased out to Raisaheb Bigyan Chand Ghosh (in short 'Ghosh') on the basis of a registered lease dated 21-5-1929 for 20 years. While the said Ghosh was in possession of the leaser hold land, he transferred the same to the father of one Sohini Bahar Sur (defendant no. 1 in the suit (described in short as 'Sur') by a registered sale deed dated 7-11-1981, and the possession was delivered to the vendee. After death of said Sohini Bahar Sur's father, Sohini Bahar Sur remained in possession of the suit land and the lease was renewed with effect from 21-5-1979 for 20 years. Sohini Bahar Sur belongs to Calcutta and therefore, he faced problems for looking after the property, offered a proposal to the petitioner to sell the leasehold property, i.e., the suit property for Rs. 20,000.00 as the petitioner owned a residential house near the same. Accordingly, the petitioner paid Rs. 2000.00 as part consideration and an agreement for sale was entered into. The said agreement was registered on 21-5-1988. After execution of the agreement, Sur delivered all the documents in respect of the suit land to petitioner and it was agreed that after Sur obtains permission from Puri Municipality shall sell the suit land, and thereafter he shall execute the requisite sale-deed on receipt of the balance consideration amount and the matter was entrusted to one Laxmidhar Jena to look after the renewal of lease-hold matter. The lease was renewed and thereafter when the petitioner approached Sur to receive the balance consideration amount, and execute the sale-deed the matter was deferred by him on some pretext or other and ultimately the petitioner received a notice on 6-9-1993 along with a bank draft of Rs. 2,000.00 from Sur wherein he intimated the petitioner that the agreement has been cancelled. This led petitioner to believe that the original defendant No. 1 was trying to sell the suit land at a higher price to somebody other than the petitioner or his son Ramaballav Mohapatra in whose name permission had been sought for from Puri Municipality for sale of the suit land. In fact the land has been sold to Smt. Manjulata Mahasuar on 21-12-1993. Accordingly a suit was instituted for specific performance of contract and injunction on 22-12-1993. Since the land was sold on 21-12-1993, name of original defendant no. 1 Sohini Bhar Sur, the vendor, who was arrayed as an opposite party in the Misc. Case was deleted.

(3.) During consideration of the application for ad interim injunction, opposite party Smt. Manjulata Mahasuar filed rejoinder wherein her specific case was that she had purchased the suit property from Sur for a valuable consideration of Rs. 65,000/- on the strength of a registered sale deed, that is prior to the institution of the suit, and had been delivered possession of the same. Her name has been mutated in the municipality records and she is exercising all the rights of a rightful owner in respect of the suit property, and she had no notice of any previous contract or agreement entered into between the petitioner and Sur. Her specific stand was that since an agreement for sale does not create any interest on the property there was no scope for accepting the prayer for ad interim injunction.