A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner heiein, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale and for delivery of possession pursuant thereto, and pending the suit an interim injunction was sought for, though two years after the suit was filed. The first Court basing upon revenue records and other evidence held that prima facie possession has been established by the plaintiff, and therefore, granted the injunction prayed for. On appeal, the appellate Court relying on a decision of the madras High Court in Aboobucker vs. Kimhamoo, held that in a suit for specific performance the plaintiff should not be allowed to take shelter under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and even if possession was given pursuant to the agreement, relief of injunction should not be granted, and accordingly reversed the finding of the trial Court. The same view was to doubt been taken in another decision of the Madras High Court in krishnamurty vs. Paramasiva. I apprehend, with great respect to their lordships of the Madras High Court it is bard for me to pursuade myself to be in line with the view taken in those decisions. It is indeed typic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document