Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The present petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by the learned ADJ 1st, Madhubani in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2016 and also for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 81 of 2011 as the injunction granted in Title Suit No. 81 of 2011 vide order dated 22.11.2016 has been affirmed by the learned appellate court in its order dated 02.05.2023.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 81 of 2011 filed for specific performance of contract. The original defendant Durga Lal Rai was the father of the petitioners who died during the pendency of the title suit. The plaintiff has made averment in his plaint that the original defendant was in need of money for treatment of his wife and thus entered into talk with the plaintiff for purchase of scheduled property of the plaint for consideration amount of Rs. 4 lakh. As the plaintiff was only having Rs.3 lakh at that time, the plaintiff apprised the original defendant that after making arrangement for Rs. 1 lakh, he would get the sale deed executed and registered for the scheduled land. Further, at the insistence of the original defendant, the plaintiff paid him Rs. 3 lakh who prepared an agreement of sale (Mahadanama) and handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The original defendant kept on assuring the plaintiff that he would execute the registered sale deed in his favour after taking Rs. 1 lakh as agreed. But despite numerous attempts by the plaintiff for taking the balance amount of Rs. 1 lakh and executing the sale deed the original defendant did not transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs towards the specific performance of contract and the plaintiff was compelled to file the title suit for specific performance of contract.

The defendant appeared and filed his written statement denying the averment made by the plaintiff. The defendant denied executing any Mahadanama to the plaintiff and claimed the Mahadanama to be forged and fabricated. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘the Code’) seeking injunction on the suit land during the disposal of the suit. The defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing show-cause. However, the learned trial court passed the order dated 22.11.2016 directing the parties to maintain status quo. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial court granting status quo on the suit land, the petitioners filed miscellaneous appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Madhubani. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 13 of 2016 was heard and the learned A.D.J.-1 affirmed the order passed by learned Sub judge vide the order dated 02.05.2023. Both the orders of learned trial court dated 22.11.2016 and the order of the learned appellate court dated 02.05.2023 have been challenged in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable as the orders are against the settled principles of law. In a suit for specific performance of contract, no injunction can be granted unless right envisaged in the agreement is established by the parties. Both the subordinate courts failed to consider the fact that unless the agreement is enforced by the orders of the Court, the plaintiff has no right in the property. The learned subordinate courts ought to have considered that if the agreement to sale is an unregistered document then possession of the land cannot be handed over in terms of amendment in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. If possession was being handed over, the document related to it was required to be compulsorily registered in terms of provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has made a wrong averment that he had been handed ove