Trespasser is not entitled to get injunction.

(Second Appeals preferred under Section 100 of the CPC as against the common judgment and decrees dated 27.1.1994 respectively rendered in A.S.Nos.4 of 1993 and 3 of 1993 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu thereby reversing the common judgment and decrees dated 30.9.1992 respectively rendered in O.S.Nos.74 of 1986 and 73 of 1986 by the District Munsif, Chengalpattu.)

Common Judgment:

The third defendant in O.S.No.74 of 1986 and the defendants 3 to 8 in O.S.No.73 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Chengalpattu, are the appellants.

2. The parties are referred to, as per their ranking in O.S.Nos.73 and 74 of 1986.

3. The first respondent in both the appeals has filed O.S.No.73 of 1986 for declaration, that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, in part performance of the contract, to purchase the property, as per the agreement dated 25.7.1981 and therefore, her possession should be protected and in this view, she sought for permanent injunction also.

4. The defendants 1 and 2, by names Jayalakshmi and Jagannathan, are the admitted owners of the suit property. The plaintiff claims, in both the suits, that the power of attorney agent of defendants 1 and 2 viz. Ramabadran had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 25.7.1981, fixing the sale consideration at Rs.60 per cent and pursuant to the agreement, he had also received a sum of Rs.1,000/=, as advance. She has further contended that pursuant to the agreement, she was put in possession of the suit property on 25.7.1981 itself and from the said date onwards, she is cultivating the property, paying necessary kist and other taxes due to the authorities. According to the plaintiff, though she was ready and willing, to pay the balance of sale consideration and paid the balance to Ramabadran in November 1983, Ramabadran was evading the execution of the sale deed and it seems, the defendants 1 and 2 have also conveyed the properties to defendants 3 to 8. In view of the agreement subsisting in favour of the plaintiff, the third defendant and other defendants cannot be bona fide transferees, but they are attempting to dispossess the plaintiff, which should be prevented, not only declaring that the plaintiff’s possession is pursuant to part performance, falling under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, but also granting permanent injunction, for which purpose, O.S.No.73 of 1986 has been filed.

5. On the same allegations or averments, O.S.No.74 of 1986 has been filed for specific performance of the contract, praying for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed, further alleging that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, whereas the defendants 1 and 2 alone have failed to perform their part of the contract and in this view, she is entitled to a decree for specific performance.

6. Both the suits are opposed by the defendants, more or less on the same grounds, contending that there was no agreement dated 25.7.1981; that Ramabadran, who is the alleged power of attorney of the defendants 1 and 2, was not the power of attorney at the relevant point of time and therefore, he has no right to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2, the owners of the suit property; that though Ramabadran had informed that the sale would be completed within three months, even after three months, no amount has been paid and therefore, the property was sold to Kanniyammal/the appellant for valuable consideration; that at no point of time, the plaintiff was put in possession of the property, pursuant to the alleged agreement dated 25.7.1981; that as per the alleged agreement dated 25.7.1981, the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and in these views, the plaintiff is neither entitled to a decree on the basis of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act nor a decree for specific performance, as claimed in both the su