The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of temporary injunction can be claimed by the plaintiff only on the basis of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, by way of an equitable relief under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein, questioning the order of the Court below dated 4.2.2009 made in I.A.No.244 of 2005 in O.S.No.66 of 2005, rejecting the plea for an injunction to restrain the respondents herein from disturbing his possession of the suit property.

2. The plaintiff/appellant claims that under a deed executed by the first defendant as evident from the materials, in the month of Adi, 2000, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property on an annual lease rental of 6 bags of paddy or its value per acre. The plaintiff had been paying the above annual rent regularly. Thereafter, respondents-1 and 2 agreed to sell the property to him for a consideration of Rs.6,44,000/-. Respondents-1 and 2 had already received an advance of Rs.4,30,000/-on 18.11.2002. They had agreed to receive the balance amount of Rs.2,14,000/-within a period of one year and have the sale deed executed at his costs. An agreement was duly executed in this regard between the parties. The appellant is in possession of the suit property.

3. It is stated that the appellant had expended on digging up a borewell in January, 2003, spending a sum of Rs.70,000/- and again in January, 2004 to a depth of 190 feet and has improved on the land. In spite of requests made to respondents-1 and 2 to receive the balance amount, respondents-1 and 2 showed no interest to receive the balance consideration and execute the sale deed. On the other hand, the plaintiff learnt that respondents-1 and 2 have created a sham and nominal document by executing sale deed dated 11.10.2004 in favour of respondents-3 and 4.

In the circumstances, a suit for specific performance was laid seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant herein in respect of the suit property on receipt of the balance amount, failing which, the Court to execute the same for and on behalf of the first and second respondents, and to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,80,000/-as damages with subsequent interest on Rs.4,30,000/- at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. The claim was resisted by the third and fourth respondents that the agreement stated to have been entered into by defendants-1 and 2 with the plaintiff was only an imaginary one. Denying the allegation of the plaintiff as to the payment of part consideration of the plaintiff being in possession of the suit property pursuant to the alleged agreement for sale, the defendants contended that the plaintiff was only an agent looking after the lands of defendants-1 and 2 and the plaintiff has no means to carry on any cultivation. Apart from that, the written statement also contains further allegation on the plaintiffs brother Kasinathan who had the design to purchase the suit lands and when the defendants refused to that course, the said Kasinathan had turned the plaintiff against the defendants and hence, the allegation did not merit consideration.

4. Pending disposal of the suit, the plaintiff sought for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the suit property and the defendants filed a counter affidavit that the plaintiff was only an employee to take care of the lands. There was never an understanding to convey the land in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Questioning the correctness of the claim that the first respondent had agreed to execute the sale deed, it was contended on their behalf that under a valid sale deed registered on 11.10.2004, for a valuable consideration, sale had been effected; as such, the petition for injunction does not lie.

5. The respondents contended that the appellant did not have any right or interest in the suit property. As no prima facie case was made out, they sought for rejection of the interim application.

6. On hearing both sides, the Court below pointed out that the sale deed executed in favour of the third and fourth respondents was marked as Exs.D1 and D2. Apar