In a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, temporary injunction cannot be granted as a matter of course. The court must consider the principles of law governing such suits, including the fact that an agreement for sale does not create any interest in the property and that the plaintiff can only claim an equitable right based on S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

These appeals are against an order in Application No. 5064 of 1990 in C.S. No. 963 of 1990. The learned trial judge has granted the prayer in the application and accordingly made an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellants, their men, agents or any other person acting on their behalf or claiming under or through them from dealing with the suit property in any manner either by sale, mortgage, lease or by putting up superstructures on the suit land or otherwise using it pending disposal of the suit. He has also awarded cost of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the plaintiff.

2. C.S. No. 963 of 1990 is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 12.10.1986. According to the plaintiff respondents 1 to 5 agreed to sell their property of an extent of 70 acres and 70 cents at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre in S. Nos. 103/1 and 103/3 in Shortrium village of Kanathur Reddikuppam, Tiruporur, the sale being subject to obtaining a sanction from Court as the interest of a lunatic was involved in the transaction. According to the plaintiff, the land was required for construction of a beach resort. Competitor appellant in O.S.A. No. 123 of 1991 (6th respondent in the application No. 5064/90), however, induced the respondents 1 to 4 in the application appellants in O.S.A. 122 of 1991 to enter into a fresh agreement. Respondents 1 to 5 committed breach of the agreement by not coming forward to sell the property to the plaintiff although they had received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in advance and that the plaintiff-respondent had taken all necessary steps to construct a building for beach resort. Alleging that respondents 1 to 5 were trying to alienate the property at the behest of the 6th respondent, the plaintiff-respondent filed the suit and accordingly applied for an interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learned single Judge issued an ex parte order of interim injunction on 10.10.1990 and has made it absolute under the impugned order.

3. The learned Trial Judge has applied the three cardinal principles and found that plaintiff-respondent has got a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience is in its favour and that there would be great hardship to it which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

4. We do not propose in these appeals to traverse any of the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Judge. The principles applied as tests to hold in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, as applied by the learned trial Judge would be in a suit for injunction and/declaration and consequential injunction, but not in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale. An agreement for sale of immovable property has been recognised as a right in equity. S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, states:

“53-A: Part performance :— Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract;

and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract,

then, notwithstanding that the contract though required to be registered, has not been registered, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a r ight expressly provided by the terms of the contract, provided that nothing in this