SUDESH KUMARI Vs. RAM PARKASH & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The appellant challenges judgment and decree dated 13.01.1998 passed by the additional District Judge, Jalandhar, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissing her suit.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant did not seek an injunction against the true owner but only against a person, who purchased a part of the land in dispute, the question of law that calls for an answer is whether the injunction has been wrongly denied by holding that injunction cannot be claimed against the true owner.

(3.) Counsel for Bakshi Ram-respondent No.2 states that the allotment made in favour of Partap Singh has been cancelled and the cancellation has been affirmed upto this Court in RSA No.1780 of 1987. Bakshi Ram who was attorney of Partap Singh, even otherwise had no right to enter into an agreement to sell. Counsel for Bakshi Ram also submits that as the appellant alleges an agreement to sell in her favour, she was required in view of the prohibition contained in Sec. 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to file a suit for specific performance instead of filing a suit for permanent injunction.