A. H. JOSHI, J. :- Appeal No. 67/2006 is filed by the defendant No.5, while Appeal No. 82 of 2006 is filed by the defendant No.1 in Special Civil Suit No. 253 of 2005.

2. It is a suit for specific performance of building constructed over the plot of 40' x 50' = 2000 sq.ft. (185.80 sq. mtrs.) along with construction standing thereon of about 1250 sq. ft. having RCC structure consisting of five shops, four rooms, three electric meters, latrine, bathroom, water tap connection, three electric meters etc. This suit property is owned by the defendant No.1.

In this Judgment parties are referred to by their status in suit.

3. According to the plaintiff :-

(a) He had entered into an agreement of sale in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 16-3-2000 and had executed a power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.2 for transferring the suit property.

(b) Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 had with the consent of the defendants No.3 and 4 and in presence of defendant No.2, entered into an agreement of sale of entire suit property with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/- and the plaintiff paid advance of Rs. 12,50,000/- for which the defendant No. 1 executed Bharna Pavati dated 15-6-2002.

(c) He is in possession of the suit property on the basis of said agreement of sale and Bharna Pavti.

(d) The execution of the sale deed was deferred up to 18 months.

(e) In the morning of 19-5-2004, the Branch Manager of the defendant No.5 Bank accompanied by the Recovery Officer, visited the suit site for seizure of the said property on the ground that it was mortgaged by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the Bank to secure the loan.

(f) The plaintiff then discovered that the defendant No. 1 Borrower had cheated the plaintiff.

(g) The defendant No. 2 who was power of attorney holder of the defendant No. 1 executed in favour of defendant No.3, a sale deed of suit property on 17-9-2004 which was lodged for registration at Sr. No. 2106 instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff based on agreement of sale dated 10-4-2003.

(h) The plaintiff was ready to make the payment of balance consideration.

(i) The plaintiff, therefore, prayed in the suit the relief of decree of specific performance of the contract and in the alternative for refund of earnest money and for interest and damages.

Though the defendant No.5 Bank is put in the array of the defendants, no relief or decree is prayed for against the defendant No.5.

4. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction

and prayed for relief which reads as follows :-

"a) to restrain the defendants, their servants, labourers or any persons on their behalf to create third party interest into the suit site or to make any attempts to disturb the peaceful, possession over the suit site of the applicant, till the decision of the suit by way of granting the temporary injunction in favour of the applicant and further be pleased restrained the non-applicant No. 3/defendant No.3 any other person claiming on behalf of herself alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property on the alleged sale-deed dated 17-9-2004 registered at serial No. 2106 executed by defendant No.2 in her favour and further be pleased restrained defendant No. 3 from making any attempts to disturb the peaceful possession over the suit property of the plaintiff/applicant under the garb of the said alleged sale-deed till disposal of the main suit."

(Quoted from page 53 of paper book of A.o. No. 67 of 2006)

5. The defendant No.1 opposed the application for temporary injunction raising various objections and factual pleas, which are summarized as below :-

(a) According to defendant No.1, he and defendant No.2 jointly purchased premises at Kaveri Complex in the name of their respective wifes. The defendant No. 2 stood guarantor for the vehicle purchased by defendant No. 1.

(b) The defendant No. 1 since 2002 was