Right of transferee to take shelter of injunction.

Mishra,.J.

The impugned order, according to us, has no infirmity and the appeal deserves to be dismissed in limine. However, since learned counsel for the appellants has persuaded us to consider the appellants’ case for injunction, in particular, on the plea of possession as an independent relief of injunction, we have heard him at length and we record our opinion in some detail.

2. According to the plaintiff-appellants, the respondents executed an agreement on 13. 1981 to sell the suit properly for a total consideration of Rs.6,00,000 and received an advance of Rs.1,50,(XX) from the plaintiffs/appellants by way of part performance of the agreement by the plaintiffs and put them in possession of a portion of the Schedule mentioned property, which was vacant, and further authorised the plaintiffs/appellants to recover vacant possession of the remaining portions occupied by third parties. It was agreed that the sale would be completed within three months after possession of the entire suit property was obtained or within six months from the date of execution of the agreement whichever was later. The plaintiffs who got possession over a portion of the suit property from the defendants-respondents also recovered possession of some more portions, but some portions are still in the occupation of the third parties. In order to evict those persons, the plaintiffs needed authority and money and accordingly they demanded, in writing, execution and registration of the sale deed from the respondents, but the respondents in their reply, without denying the execution of the agreement, raised a demand to a sum of Rs.9,00,000 instead of Rs.4,50,000. The plaintiffs thus moved the Court alleging that the cause of action for the suit arose at Madras on 13. 1981 where and when the suit agreement was executed, where the suit property is situate and on which date the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000 to the defendants under the said agreement, and on which date the defendants put the plaintiffs in possession of the vacant portion of the suit property in part performance of the suit agreement, besides other facts.

3. The plaintiffs/appellants then filed an application for an interim injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from intermeddling with in any manner with the corpus of the property mentioned in the schedule to the Judge’s summons and from interfering with the appellants’ possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The trial court first granted an interim injunction as prayed for on 29-4-1991. After notice and after hearing the respondents the trial court, however,dismissed the application for injunction.

5. The defendants-respondents have accepted the agreement for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000 and also admitted that they have received a sum of Rs.1,50,000 as advance from the appellants. They have, however, disputed the appellants’ case that they were put in possession of certain portion of the suit land by the respondents. They have stated that the entire property is under the occupation of slum-dwellers. There are more than 50 huts over the suit land. They tried to remove the encroachment, but they could not do so. They then decided to sell the suit land for a consideration of Rs.6,00,000 in the year 1981 to the appellants. After the agreement, the appellants made some attempt to vacate the slum-dwellers by directly dealing with them. This gave rise to civil litigations. Many of them are still pending. The respondents were willing to provide all legal assistance for vacating the slum-dwellers from the suit land provided it was at the cost of the appellants. The appellants could not obtain possession from any of the third parties and they were unable to vacate the persons who were in possession of the suit land. They (appellants) orally said to the respondents that they were not interested in purchasing the suit land. They prevented several prospective purchasers from purchasing