AMARJIT KAUR Vs. BIMLA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order declining injunction for a plaintiff who contended that he is in possession of the property under two agreements of sale which are sought to be enforced in a suit for specific performance. The agreements dated 17.5.1996 and 1.8.1996 are in respect of two parcels of land. In respect of the first agreement, there is no reference to any specific date before when the sale deed was to be executed. The plaintiff seems to have obtained a power of attorney from the vendor and also obtained a will from the vendor. In respect of the second document, the sale was to be completed before 16.12.1996. The suit has been filed in the year 2003, when, according to the plaintiff, he came to know that the 1st defendant in defiance of the power of attorney and the will, has executed an agreement purporting to convey the suit property to the second defendant The appellate court has restrained the defendants from further alienating the property but has disallowed the claim for injunction as regards the plaintiffs alleged possession by reference to the fact that against the registered document of purchase a person claiming under an agreement cannot secure the relief of injunction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the document dated 17.5.1996 contains a specific recital of delivery of property to the hands of the plaintiff. Pursuant to the document, he has taken possession and also granted a lease to 3rd parties and the lessees have given affidavits in support of their respective possession under the lease arrangements. The counsel would argue that the defendants have not filed any document to prove the possession and, therefore, plaintiffs possession must be protected. The counsel would refer to me to the interim order passed by this court directing the status quo to be continued.

(2.) I find no difficulty in accepting as a proposition of law that a person claiming under an agreement where he has established his possession, there is no bar against grant of interim injunction even against the subsequent purchaser. The relief of injunction, however, is always a discretionary relief and founded on established principle of strong prima-facie case. In this case, the agreement was made in the year 1996 stipulating no period for completion of transaction and the plaintiff would rely on a will and a power of attorney as constituting proof of ownership. The suit is filed nearly 7 years subsequent to the agreement, it would be surely an issue in suit whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance. Again even as regards the agreement dated 1.8.1996, if there was a clause spelt out for enforcement of the agreement of sale by 16.12.1996, whether the plaintiff filed the suit only in the year 2003, it is again a point for consideration in suit whether the suit was in time. In my view, the plaintiff does not have a strong prima facie case to sustain his relief of injunction. Mere reference to status quo as ordered by this Court at the time of ordering notice cannot dictate the manner of disposal of the revision at the final stage. A decision has to be taken on its merits and I find in this case the plaintiff did not merit the discretionary relief. Under the circumstances, where he had not taken a document of sale in the manner that law contemplates and was relying on a power of attorney and a registered will, the plaintiff must suffer the consequences for his own fault and I find no error in reasoning of the lower court for interference in the revision. The revision petition is dismissed.