JUDGMENT :

This Appeal from Order has been preferred under Section 104, Order 43 Rule 1 (R) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 5.4.2016 passed by learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Exh-7 in Civil Suit No. 3110 of 2013 whereby the injunction application i.e. Notice of Motion has been rejected.

2. It is contended that the appellant-plaintiff is in possession of the suit property since 1991 and he is cultivating the land in question. It is also contended that there was a Will which was executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the defendant and there was an entry No. 2509 dated 13.3.2013 pertaining to that effect in the revenue record. It is contended that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the report of Court Commissioner clearly shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It is also contended that the plaintiff has paid full consideration of the land and since he was in possession, the trial Court ought to have granted injunction as question of immovable property is involved. It is contended that without considering the report of the Court Commissioner, the trial Court has erroneously observed that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and has prayed to quash the interim order and grant injunction.

3. Heard Mr. Karathiya, learned advocate for Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Digant Popat, learned advocate for the defendant No.6.

4. The appellant is the original plaintiff and the respondents are defendants before the trial Court. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this order as per their status before their trial Court i.e. plaintiff and defendants.

5. Mr. Karathiya, learned advocate for the plaintiff has vehemently submitted that there was agreement to sell executed between the parties in the year 1991 and Rs.2,06,000/- was paid by way of cheque and thereafter certain other amount was paid and in all Rs.2,55,000/ - has been paid. He has submitted that as per the conditions averred in the agreement to sell, it was a new tenure land and it was to be con-verted into old tenure land and it was agreed that after such conversion, sale-deed was to be executed. While referring to the agreement to sell wherein certain hand written averment is made regarding the payment, it is submitted that the plaintiff has paid huge amount of Rs. 2,56,0007- and there is also mention of one cheque of Rs.5000/-. According to him, since 80% amount has been paid, the possession was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant. He has submitted that thereafter the property has been sold to defendant No.6. He has also submitted that in view of the averments made in the agreement to sell (Page-4)( Paper-book page-22). The defendant has accepted the receipt of 80% of the sale price i.e. Rs.59360A and handed over the possession to the plaintiff. He has also submitted that there was Will in favour of the plaintiff regarding the suit property being bequeathed to the plaintiff. He has also submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings panchnama was carried out of the suit property wherein it was found that the suit property land is in possession of the plaintiff. According to him, this very document has not been considered by the learned trial Court. He has submitted that the other side has not challenged the document of the plaintiff regarding the agreement to sell.

5.1 Mr. Karathiya, learned advocate has submitted that new purchaser has purchased the property pending the suit. According to him, if no injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff then there would be multiplicity of suit apd irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. He has also submitted that since there was an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and the rights regarding immovable property is involved, atleast status-quo ought to have been granted by the trial Court. He has prayed to allow the present appeal by granting inte