The main legal point established in the judgment is that S.53-A of the Transfer of Property Act can only be used as a shield and not as a sword, and that S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act imposes a total prohibition on granting injunctions in certain cases.

2nd defendant in O.S.211/90 on the file of Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Alappuzha is the appellant. Suit was filed for a declaration that the decree in O.S.No. 81/78 on the file of Sub Court, Alappuzha is not binding on the plaintiff and that he has become the absolute owner of plaint schedule property, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from taking further proceedings in execution of the aforesaid decree. In the alternative, he prayed for a decree directing the defendant to specifically perform the agreement of sale dated 26-3-1974 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1602 of 1990 under O.XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and S.151 CPC seeking a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from taking further proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S.81/78 of Sub Court, Alappuzha and taking possession of the plaint schedule property till disposal of the suit.

3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the C.M. Appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed O.S.211 of 1990 alleging that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant executed an agreement for sale of plaint schedule property by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Towards sale consideration, plaintiff paid to 1st defendant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 11-1-1973 and Rs. 20,000/- on 22-3-1973 and plaintiff was put in possession of the property. As seen from endorsements made on the agreement, the balance of consideration was also paid on different dates. Plaintiff repaired the building standing in the property and let out the same. He was paying the building tax in respect of the building and was taking the income from the property. While so, for the arrears of sale tax due from 1st defendant, revenue recovery proceedings were taken and the property was brought to sale. Thereupon, plaintiff filed O.S.No.186/81 before the Munsiffs Court, Alappuzha for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants therein from proceeding against the plaint property for realisation of arrears of tax. On knowing this the 2nd defendant got himself impleaded as additional 4th defendant on the allegation that he had filed O.S.81/78 and obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement in respect of 1 acre and 411/2 cents from out of the suit property on the strength of an agreement dated 5-1-1978. The contention raised by the 2nd defendant herein as 4th defendant was not gone into by the trial court and it was left open as the court felt that it was not necessary for disposal of the suit. It is the plaintiff s case that the alleged agreement of 1st defendant with the 2nd defendant dated 5-1-1978 was executed with full knowledge and notice of the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not a party to O.S.81/78 and the decree passed therein will not bind him or his right over plaint schedule property and that therefore the plaintiff was entitled to get a decree as prayed for. In the above interlocutory application, the plaintiff urged that in the above circumstances, he is entitled to a temporary injunction.

4. Appellant filed a counter affidavit contending that the suit and the application for temporary injunction are filed without any bona fides and they are not maintainable in law and that the suit was filed in collusion with the 1st defendant. According to the appellant, the alleged agreement is a concocted one brought about at the instance of 1st defendant. The allegation of payment of consideration and delivery of possession was denied and it was contended that the property was always in the possession of Ist defendant. It was also alleged that plaintiff had no financial resources to pay the alleged consideration, that the present suit was filed to defeat the claim of the appellant, and that therefore he is not entitled to any relies under S.53-A of Transfer of Property Act. It was also urged that he had filed O.S.673/1982 in the Munsiffs Court, Alappuzha for a declaration that the attac