The plaintiff's possession did not need protection, and the plaintiff was well protected under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, leading to the court's decision to decline the temporary injunction.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being No. 15 dated 27th September, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No. 267 of 2012 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant.

2. By the impugned order, the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge is under challenge in this appeal before us.

3. Let us now consider the merit of this appeal for ascertaining as to whether this appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.

4. Here is the case where we find that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendants. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale for purchasing 72 decimals of land from the defendant no. 1 and proforma defendant no. 2. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that in pursuance of the agreement for sale entered into between the parties, possession of the entire 72 decimals of land was given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been possessing the said 72 decimals of land since the time of execution of such agreement for sale.

5. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that though the proforma defendant executed a deed of conveyance for transferring 36 decimals of land out of the said 72 decimals of land to the plaintiff in pursuance of the said agreement for sale, but the defendant no. 1 has not executed any deed of conveyance for transferring his right, title and interest in respect of the remaining 36 decimals of land in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant no. 1.

6. The defendant no. 1 appeared in the said suit and contested the said suit by filing written statement. The suit has matured for hearing and the same is now in the peremptory stage of hearing. At this stage, plaintiff has filed an application seeking temporary injunction against the defendant no. 1 for restraining him from transferring and/or alienating the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

7. Learned Trial Judge rejected the plaintiff’s said application by holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Learned Trial Judge also held that the plaintiff should have come to file this suit within three years from the date of purchasing 36 decimals of land from the proforma defendant no. 2. Holding as such, the learned Trial Judge rejected the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction. The legality and/or propriety of the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge is now under challenge before us.

8. On reading the pleadings of the plaintiff, we find that the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff was put into possession of the suit property by the proposed vendor in pursuance of the agreement for sale entered into between them. When the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the strength of the agreement for sale, his possession need not be protected and in fact he has not prayed for any relief for protecting his possession in the application for temporary injunction. He has only prayed for injunction for restraining the defendant no. 1 from transferring his share in the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

9. We are of the view that even if injunction on transfer is not granted, still then the plaintiff is well protected in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as any transfer pendente lite will be hit by the provision of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. As such, we feel that this is not a fit case where injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff was required to be passed. Accordingly, we hold that the learned Trial Judge did not commit any illegalit