GHANTA GOPALA RAO Vs. GOGINENI VENKATRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent brought O.S. No. 46 of 1942 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tenali for enforcement of his contract of sale dated 25 January 1941 against defendant 3 and for an injunction restraining him and the other defendants from interfering with his possession. He also, by way of a separate petition, prayed for a temporary injunction. It was found that the plaintiff was in possession in part performance of the agreement to sell on 25 January 1941 and the Subordinate Judge therefore passed an order of temporary injunction in his favour. THE argument of Mr. Sitarama Rao, quoting Probhodh Kumar Das V/s. Dantamara Tea Co., Ltd. is that Section 53A, T. P. Act, only entitles a person in possession in pursuance of an agreement to sell, to protection from any action of the transferor or those claiming under him to evict him on the ground that he had no legal title to the property and that the respondent is not therefore entitled to the positive relief of an injunction. It is not desirable that I should say anything on the merits of the prayer for a permanent injunction, but the present application can be distinguished from Probhodh Kumar Das V/s. Dantamara Tea Co., Ltd. on the ground that the present application is one for a temporary injunction only, where the considerations are rather different from those for a permanent injunction and also because in Probhodh Kumar Das V/s. Dantamara Tea Co., Ltd. the person in whose favour the contract had been executed did not sue for specific performance whereas in the present instance he has. Nevertheless, Mr. Sitarama Rao states that the plaintiff would not be entitled to an injunction until he has perfected his title by a sale deed executed under orders of Court by defendants 1 and 2 in his favour. It is unnecessary to consider this question; for the plaintiff is in possession and it is not certain that he will not succeed in obtaining a permanent injunction. Moreover, as the suit has been pending for more than a year and is therefore likely to be disposed of soon, I do not think it necessary to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. THE appeal is dismissed with costs.