RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs. GOKUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-defendant, in this appeal, challenges the order dated 30.11.2005 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby a temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff- respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction in respect of an alleged agreement to sell dated 03.09.1992. According to the respondent No. 1, he and the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 170, measuring 3 bigha 16 biswas and Khasra No. 186, measuring 7 bigha 12 biswa, in total measuring 11 bigha 8 biswas, situated in Village Bhanpur Khurd, Tehsil Jamuwaramgarh, District Jaipur. Furthermore, he alleged that the appellant had agreed to sell the land @ Rs. 15,000/- per bigha and for a total consideration of Rs. 1,71,000/-. At the time of signing of the agreement, the respondent No. 1 paid Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant. Simultaneously, the possession of the land was given to the respondent No. 1 by the appellant. He further alleged that on 10.11.1992 he paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, on 14.01.1993 he paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, on 20.11.1992 he further paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, on 5.12.1992 a further sum of Rs. 15,000/-, on 29.12.1992 a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- and lastly on 13.06.1994 a further sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, by 13.06.1994 a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the appellant by the respondent No. 1. When the said respondent asked the appellant to get the sale deed registered, he was informed that a further sum of Rs. 21,000/- was still outstanding. Therefore, on 20.06.1994 he made the last payment of Rs. 21,000/- in the presence of one Shri Hari Ram Meena. Despite the various requests to get the sale deed registered, the appellant refused to do so. Only assurances were given by the appellant to the respondent. But, these assurances were in vain. The respondent further claimed that the appellant wanted to sell the said property to someone else. Therefore, he had no option, but to file the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

(3.) ALONG with the plaint, the respondent No. 1 had also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short). After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 30.11.2005, the learned Judge was pleased to grant the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant to maintain status quo and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent No. 1. Hence, this appeal before this Court.