Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). This appeal is against the order of the trial court dated 28.3.2006 passed on an application filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court dismissed the injunction application filed by the appellant in a case where the appellant filed the suit for specific performance of oral agreement dated 26.6.2005.

(3). Brief facts of the case are that according to the appellant, the respondent no.1 is a trust and the respondents no.2 to 6 are its trustees. The respondent no.1s agriculture land is having khasra nos.21 to 23, 29 to 31, 37 to 39, 43 and 44. The appellant for the purpose of marble mining operations in the said land sought consent letter of the respondent no.1 trust. The respondent no.1 agreed on 26.6.2005 to give the consent letter for a consideration of total Rs.70 lakhs. According to the appellant, he paid Rs.10 lakhs in cash on 26.6.2005 to the respondent no.2 in the presence of other trustees. It was decided that the appellant will pay Rs.50 lakhs by 15.9.2005 by demand draft and remaining Rs.10 lakhs will be paid by the appellant at the time of submitting the consent letter of the respondent trust before the mining department. As per the agreed condition, the consent letter of the respondent trust shall remain in force for 20 years from the date of grant of lease by the mining department for marble mining. It is stated that the respondent trust through its trustees agreed that they will not breach the contract on any condition nor the respondents will put any obstruction in the execution of the work. There was negative covenant also that the respondents will not give the consent letter to any other party. For not obtaining the written agreement, the explanation of the appellant is that the respondent no.2 is the Chief trustee of the respondent trust and is head of the Pusti Margiya Sampradaya where he is treated as God and no one can question the integrity of the respondent no.2, therefore, the written contract was not obtained because of faith and position of respondent no.2. The appellant in furtherance to the said agreement dated 26.6.2005 obtained the demand draft of Rs.50 lakhs in the name of the respondent trust. Copy of the draft was sent by fax on 13.9.2005 to the respondent no.6, one of the trustee, which according to the appellant is in furtherance to the directions given by the trustees. Subsequently, after 13.9.2005, the appellant came to know that the respondent no.2 - Chief trustee is staying at Kankroli town in Rajasthan itself. Therefore, the appellant went to Kankroli so that the demand draft of Rs.50 lakhs may be handed over to the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 told the appellant that the respondent no.2 will be staying at Kankroli for two more days, therefore, he will take the draft afterwards but when the appellant went to the respondent no.2 on 16.9.2005, he found that the respondent no.2 already left Kankroli town. This attitude of the respondent no.2 created doubt in the mind of the appellant. The appellant also heard from others that the respondents are making efforts to give consent letter to other persons. The appellant thereafter found that the respondents are doing this because of the reason that the respondent no.11 is Minister in the Government of Rajasthan and he is putting pressure upon the respondent no.2 for giving consent letter. The appellant because of his urgent work went to Jaipur on 18.9.2005 and from there, he contacted trustees - Navneet, Sharad Bhai, Govind Bhai as well as the chief trustee - Shri Brijesh Kumar Goswami on telephone. The appellant informed them that in the market persons are saying that the respondent no.1 is about to give consent letter to the other person. The respondent no.2 gave evasive reply to the appellant and asked him to come to Baroda on 20.9.2005. The appellant also talked with the other trustees on telephone and he recorded the conversation on tape.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document