The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 1996, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, filed the Second Appeal. He filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, against the respondents, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he entered into an agreement of sale, with the 1st respondent, on 27-3-1983, for purchase of the suit schedule property, for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- and he paid a sum of Rs.5,100/- on the date of agreement. A further sum of Rs.8,000/- is said to have been paid on 20-4-1983 and Rs.1,000/- in June 1983. According to him, the possession of the property was delivered on the date of agreement itself. The 1st respondent was said to be under obligation, to arrange for execution of sale deed, with the participation of the original owners, by name Macherla Seetharatnam of Kakinada and Kadimisetti Saraswathi of Anakapalli. He alleged that notwithstanding his possession and enjoyment over the property since 1983, the respondents who belong to the same family, attempted to dispossess him on 23-1-1996. With these averments he filed the suit.

2. The 1st respondent filed written statement. He stated that he is only a lessee, in respect of the suit schedule property, and that he borrowed certain amount from the appellant. He alleged that the appellant brought about an alleged of sale, with a malafide intention, and that the appellant was never in possession of the suit schedule property. He further contends that the agreement of sale, even otherwise, was never intended to be acted upon. The trial court dismissed the suit, through its judgment dated 26-4-2004. Thereupon, the appellant filed A.S.No.5 of 2004, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. The appeal was dismissed on 2.1.2006. Hence, this Second Appeal.

3. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel, advanced arguments on behalf of the appellant. He contends that the view taken by the courts below, that a suit for mere injunction was not maintainmable, without the prayer for specific performance of the agreement of sale, untenable. He contends that apart from being used as a shield, under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, an agreement of sale can be pressed into service, to protect the possession, even by filing a suit. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence on record clearly discloses not only that the agreement of sale was executed, but also that the appellant is in possesion of the property.

4. Sri K. Saravabouma Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that when the 1st respondent did not have any right to sell the property, the question of his executing an agreement of sale, much less its being enforced, does not arise. He further contends that the courts below have taken into account, the settled principles of law, particularly in relation to the rights of an agreement holder, in the context of seeking a positive relief, and that no interference is warranted.

5. Since the suit was filed for relief of injunction simplicitor, the trial court framed only one issue; viz.,

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief on perpetual injunction”

The 1st respondent admitted his signature on the agrement of sale, Ex.A-1, but took a plea that it was not nominal and was never intended to be acted upon, the following additional issue was framed, at a later stage:

“Whether the sale agreement dated 27-3-1983 is nominal one and not supported by consideration?”

6. To prove his case, the appellant examined Pws.1 to 5 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of the respondents, DWs 1 to 4 were examined and the documents filed on their behalf were marked as Exs.X-1 to X-9. The trial court answered the additional issue in favour of the respondents, but dismissed the suit by answering the other issue, against them. The lower appellate court concentrated much upon the entitlement of the appellant, for the relief of perpetual injunction, and dismissed the appeal.