S.N. BHARGAVA. J.—This is an appeal against the order of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, granting an injunction against the defendant appellants, restraining them from selling the land of Khasra No. 1111 and 1112 and from making any constructions, and further directing to maintain the status quo.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The first agreement was dated 11.7.75 by which the defendants agreed to sell land measuring 6 Bighas and 12 Biswas out of Khasra No 1111 for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- and a sum of Rs. 100/- was given in advance. It was further agreed that as soon as the respondent society paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, the possession of the property would be handed over to the Society. The time given in the agreement was of six months. Since the respondent Society could not pay the amount, the time was extended initially upto 31.12.76 and again upto 31.12.78. On 28.12.78, another agreement was executed by which the appellants agreed to sell the land to the respondent Society on the same terms, except the portion of land measuring 56 x 80 on the South-West corner preserved for Satsang Bhawan and the portion on the North-East corner where there was a well and pump set installed. The land was enclosed by barbed wires. A map was also enclosed alongwith the agreement. On 15.4.79, the possession of the land as mentioned in the agreement dated 28.12.78 was also handed over to the Society through another written RUKKA. The defendants also signed the site plan in taken thereof. The total sum of Rs. 1.29,950/- was paid on different dates by the Society to the defendants. On 21 4.80, a notice was sent by the respondent Society to the defendants that it had come to their notice that out of the land the possession whereof has been handed over to the respondent Society, land measuring 2 Bighas 16 Biswas belonged to Khasra No. 1112-A detailed reply to this notice was given by the defendants in which they explained the whole situation as to under what circumstances they have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff society. The present suit was filed by the respondent Society for specific performance on 29.6 83.

3. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. was also filed alongwith the plaint on 29.6 83 and the trial court passed an ad interim order on 30th June, 1983 that the defendants should not sell the property shown by Red colour in the plaint nor they should make any construction thereon.

4. The defendants filed the reply of the stay application on 12.8.83 and thereafter, the trial court after hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order granting an injunction against the appellants from selling any land out of Khasra No. 1112, and directing not to make any constructions and to maintain the status quo. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in a suit for specific performance, the court should not grant temporary injunction and in this connection, has placed reliance on Krishna Moorthy Kounder Vs. Paramasiva Koundar (1).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this view taken by the Madras High Court in Krishna Moorthy Kounders case (supra), is not correct and has been dissented by the Bombay High Court in Venkat Dharmaji Gontalwar Vs. Vishwanath (2). He has further placed reliance on Mahesh Chand Heda vs. Mahesh Prasad(3) in which case this court has held that a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from selling the land can be passed in a suit for specific performance. In that case, the teamed Additional District Judge, dismissed the application for grant of temporary injunction. In appeal, this court set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and observed as under:-

"If the respondent is permitted to sell the pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document