The main legal point established is that the court will consider the genuineness of the agreement, readiness and willingness of the parties, and the applicability of relevant legal provisions in specific performance cases.

S.B. Shukre, J.

1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. In a suit filed for specific performance of the contract, the appellants' application for grant of temporary injunction was rejected by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Amravati by the order dated 6.1.2014 against which the present appeal has been filed.

3. It was the case of the appellants that as per agreement dated 4.5.2011 the respondent-owner of suit lands bearing Survey No. 91/1/A and 89/2, had agreed to sell these lands, hereinafter referred to as suit lands, for consideration of Rs.20,84,062/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, an amount of Rs.5,21,015/-was paid by the appellants to the respondent and later on an amount of Rs. one lac was also paid by them to the respondent as part payment of the consideration of agreement to sell. Appellants' counsel submitted that last date of execution of sale-deed was 4.11.2011 and it was specifically mentioned that upon failure of the appellants to get the sale-deed executed by the time so stipulated, the respondent would be entitled to forfeit the earnest money. Certain liabilities were also imposed upon the respondent, one of which was that he would be carrying out measurements of the suit lands at his expenses.

4. The appellants further submitted that on 4.11.2011 they were present in the office of Sub Registrar, but the respondent did not turn up and, therefore, sale-deed could not be executed, although they were ready and willing to perform their part of contract. On the same day, the appellants also executed an affidavit showing their presence at the office of Sub Registrar. Thereafter the appellants sent a notice to the respondent calling upon him to fulfill the promise under the agreement, but in vain. Therefore, the appellants preferred a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondent and also claimed injunction against him.

5. The application for grant of temporary injunction was resisted by the respondent. Basically, it was his case that the agreement to sell alleged to be executed by him in favour of the appellants was a nominal document and underlying transaction was of money lending. He submitted that he had obtained an amount of Rs. one lac from the appellants by way of loan and since the appellants threatened him to not lend him the money and that he was badly in need of money, he was compelled to sign the stamp paper in black as well as certain papers also in blank. He also submitted that one of the lands bearing survey no. 89/2, being a fragment, could not have been sold by him in view of bar under Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short Fragmentation Act). He also submitted that the fact that boundaries of one of the lands were not described at all in the agreement to sell, would itself show that the agreement was sham and bogus. On these grounds, he urged that the temporary injunction application should be rejected.

6. The contentions of respondent were upheld and by the order dated 6.1.2014 the learned Civil Judge rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order of rejection of temporary injunction application is illustrative of perverse appreciation of agreement of sale dated 4.5.2011 and the arbitrary exercise of discretion in refusing the relief of temporary injunction to the appellant. In support, he has taken me through the agreement to sell dated 4.5.2011 and also the impugned order dated 6.1.2014.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly resisting the contentions, submits that the impugned order is correct and it does not exhibit any perverse or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the matter and so this Court cannot interfere with the same. He has also taken me through the agreement in question and also the impugned order in support of his argument.

9. Upon going through the impugned order and also the ag