A suit for permanent injunction to restrain alienation of property is not maintainable when an equally efficacious remedy, such as a suit for specific performance, is available.

1. Plaintiff’s in O.S. No. 158 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Chingleput, is the revision petitioner.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff’s that he has obtained an agreement for sale from the defendant who is the owner of the property. It is also said that the defendant in spite of various demands made by the plaintiff, has not come forward to execute the document and he has been evading to perform his part of contract for one reason or other. It was also contended that right from May, 1998, the defendant has been attempting to sell the property in favour of 3rd parties for higher price and has been evading registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also said that the plaintiff has also expressed his readiness and willingness to take the sale deed and even approached the defendant on 15. 1998 to have the transaction completed, but the defendant was again evading to have the document executed. The suit was therefore laid for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, restraining him from alienating the property in favour of any person and. to award costs.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he denied that he has executed any agreement for sale and the so called agreement is only created or fabricated by the plaintiff. He also averred that he has not attempted to sell the property since there is no necessity for him to sell the same,

4. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No. 755 of 1998 to get a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating the property, A counter-affidavit was also filed by the defendant, reiterating his contentions that the agreement is fabricated and he is not intending to sell the property to anyone.

5. The trial court as per order dated 26. 1998, allowed the application. It held that the plaintiff has proved a prima facie case and it is further found that there is a case which has to be fought out in trial and consequently, the status quo has to be maintained, an interim order was granted.

6. Against the order, defendant preferred C.M.A. No. 25 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judges Court at Chengalpattu. The lower appellate court held that the application itself is not maintainable and the injunction application was dismissed. The lower appellate court held that the plaintiff has not proved a prima facie and apart from the same, the present suit is barred under Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act. The lower appellate court held that no ground is made out for grant of injunction and consequently, the application itself was dismissed by allowing appeal.

7. It is against the said judgment, plaintiff has preferred this revision.

8. Since caveat was entered by the respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself.

9. While considering the prima facie, the Court will have to consider, whether the suit itself is maintainable. Under Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, an injunction cannot be granted "when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust".

10. In this case, the plaintiff has admitted that he has obtained an agreement for sale and he is always ready and willing to take the sale deed. He also wanted the defendant to perform his part of the contract His contention is, since the defendant has committed breach of his obligations, he is now compelled to file a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The cause of action is also stated to be that the defendant is attempting to sell the property in favour of the 3rd parties and in spite of demand by the plaintiff to have the document executed, the defendant evaded in completing the transaction. It is not disputed by the plaintiff himself that in case of breach of obligation, the suit for specific performance is the remedy that is available under law. It is also not his case that the remedy for speci