The main legal point established in the judgment is that the necessity of permission under the Gujarat Public Trust Act, the conduct of the parties in fulfilling their obligations under the agreement to sell, and the applicability of the law of limitation were crucial factors in determining the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT :

A.P. THAKER, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed below Exh-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 155/2008 by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat on 15.2.2020, whereby the application preferred by the original plaintiff for interim injunction pending the Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction, restraining the original defendants to deal with the suit property in any manner is allowed, the defendants have preferred this Appeal from Order under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC.

2. The appellants are the original defendants and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the original plaintiffs in the said Suit. The plaintiffs have filed the Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.4.1992 and has also prayed for permanent injunction against dealing with the property in any manner.

3. As per the contention of the plaintiffs, the land was in occupation of one Baheramsha Minocher and possession was to be handed over to the plaintiffs by obtaining possession from him and for that purpose, signatures of the said person was obtained as consenting party in the agreement to sell. It is also averred that necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner was obtained at the relevant time. However, the same was challenged by some of the group of dis-satisfied Trustees and order of the said Charity Commissioner came to be set-aside by Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by order dated 21.9.2000 and the matter was remanded back. It is also contended that thereafter the plaintiffs filed Special Civil Application No. 4621 of 2003 and also requested the government to acquire land as prayed by the plaintiffs, which was challenged by the defendants before the High Court by Special Civil Application No. 10305 of 2000 which came to be rejected on 27.9.2000. Thereafter, the State Government has issued Notification under Section 6 on 5.1.2022, against which defendant Nos. 7 and others have filed Special Civil Application No. 3495 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 3496 of 2000 and Special Civil Application No. 3494 of 2002. Meanwhile, the State Government withdrew the Notification on 26.6.2002 and, therefore, all the Civil Applications came to be withdrawn. That the plaintiffs have filed SCA No. 779 of 2003 against the withdrawal of the Notification by the State Government, which came to be dismissed. It is contended by the plaintiffs that plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform its part of the contract but the trustees of the Trust are not ready to executed sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the plaintiffs paid earnest money of Rs. 25 Lakh to defendant Trust and it is also ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. On all these grounds, the Plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid Suit and have also sought for permanent injunction against the defendants.

4. The defendants have resisted the Suit and submitted that as property is a Trust property, without the permission of the Charity Commissioner, it cannot be sold. It is also contended that since possession of the property was not with the plaintiffs and from the very beginning, the Trust was not ready to perform its part of contract, the time has already started in the year 1995 when the notice transaction was initiated, therefore, no injunction be issued against the defendant. It is also averred that even in the Notice dated 4.12.1995 wherein the plaintiffs have clearly demanded back the earnest money with interest of 1.5% and, therefore, it shows that the plaintiffs were not willing to perform its part of contract and accordingly the Suit is barred by law of limitation and interim injunction may not be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

5. After hearing both the sides and considering the material placed on record, the trial Court has passed the impugned order restraining the defendants from dealing with the property in any manner during the pendency of the Suit.

6. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior