D.L. MEHTA, J.—The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit For specific performance on the basis of sale deed dated 12th July, 1985 and prayed that the sale-deed may be got registered and the defendants may be directed to get it verified. In the sale-deed, there is a reference that the possession of the disputed land has been delivered to the purchaser.

2. The purchaser plaintiff-appellant move an application under O. 39 R. 1 and C.P.C. that an injunction may be issued prohibiting the defendant-respondents not to interfere with their lawful possession. The learned court below considering the provisions of Section 37 and the decision of the Madras High Court in a case of Krishnamoorty Koundar Vs. Paramasive Koundar (1) held that temporary injunction cannot be granted to enable the vendee to protect his possession. The Madras High Court was of the view that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale by the prospective vendee, such vendee can not be grande temporary injunction to enable him to protect his possession only on the basis of the terms of the agreement that he was given possession of the property on the date of agreement of sale unless the truth of delivery of possession is established at the trial.

3. Provisions of Section 37 read with Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act were considered by the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court was of the view that where the case of the plaintiff is that under an agreement of sale he has been put in possession of the suit land and prima facie when the agreement itself recites that the possessions has been delivered to the plaintiff and the agreement is on stamp paper and execution thereof is admitted by the defendant then the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, in a suit seeking specific performance of agreement. The Bombay High Court has discussed the case of the Madras High Court in a case of Venkat Dharmaji Gontalwar Vs. Vishwanath (2)

4. Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. provides that when the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may grant temporary injunction to" restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of preventing the dispossession of the plaintiff or for the purpose of preventing the causing of injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute. Thus, injunction is preventive relief. If a party to the suit invades the right of possession of the other party in any manner which results in causing obstruction to the peaceful legal enjoyment of that right, other party can invoke the provisions of O. 39 R. 1 and 2 C.P.C. and can claim relief of injunction in the suit itself. Injunction is a preventive relief and is generally granted taking note of the equity. The right to enjoy peacefully the property is an important right attached to any interest which may be carved out as a title of the plaintiff or as a right to continue in possession. Section 5 3-A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be used as a sword but can be used as a shield. In the instant case the plaintiff has come with a case that under a sale-deed dated 12th July, 1985 he has obtained the possession and he wants to protect the possession which he has acquired under the sale-deed dated 12th July, 1985. He does not want to use the unregistered sale-deed as a sword but he wants to use it as a shield and wants to get the benefit of provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. Admission of a party can be used against the party making an admission of course, the party making the admission as a right to rebut the admission so made and can plead and can prove that the admission so made is not true. The burden shall be of the party who wants to show that the admission so made is untrue. In the instant case, there is an admission of the party executing the sale-deed and that execution can be used against the party making it. At the sam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document