Unregistered agreements can be admissible in specific performance suits; timely legal action justified if one party attempts to alienate property.

JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

These two appeals are filed challenging the fair and final order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2024 in O.S.No.209 of 2024, whereunder the trial Court allowed the application for vacating interim injunction in I.A.No.4 of 2024 and dismissed the application seeking interim injunction in I.A.No.3 of 2024.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the main suit. He filed a suit for specific performance of sale agreement dated 06.01.2024 against the respondents 1 and 2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the first respondent is the owner of the subject matter of the sale agreement. The appellant entered into a sale agreement with first respondent on 06.01.2024 agreeing to purchase the agreement mentioned property for sale consideration of Rs.1,82,00,000/-. It was pleaded that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the appellant to first respondent by way of cash on 30.12.2023. Further a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid on 06.01.2024 to first respondent by the appellant by way of money transfer to his account. Again a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the appellant to first respondent on 08.01.2024 by way of cash. Therefore, according to the appellant a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to first respondent by way of advance on two days i.e. 30.12.2023, 06.01.2024. It was agreed between the parties that sale transaction should be completed by paying balance sale consideration within six months from the date of execution of the sale agreement (06.01.2024). It was also pleaded that pursuant to the suit sale agreement, the appellant/plaintiff developed the property by spending Rs.5,00,000/-. It was further pleaded that the appellant requested his friend and mother of his friend to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the account of the first respondent/defendant in part performance of suit sale agreement. It is not in dispute that though said amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was paid to the account of first defendant in two instalments on 22.02.2024 and 29.02.2024, the said amount was returned by the first defendant on the ground that he did not have any transaction with persons who transferred the money to his account. Subsequently, violating the terms of the agreement, the first defendant attempted to alienate the property to third parties. He also appointed the second respondent herein as his power agent to deal with his property on 28.02.2024 by way of registered power deed for consideration. Since the first respondent attempted to wriggle out of contract, the instant suit for specific performance was filed. Along with the plaint, the appellant herein filed I.A.No.3 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2 from alienating or encumbering the agreement mentioned property pending disposal of the suit. Initially, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction and thereafter, the first respondent herein filed I.A.No.4 of 2024 seeking vacation of the interim order. Both the interlocutory applications were heard together and the application filed by the first respondent seeking vacation of the interim order was allowed and the interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking temporary injunction was dismissed after vacating the order. Aggrieved by the said order, these two appeals are filed by the appellant.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the trial Court dismissed the petition for temporary injunction mainly on the ground that suit agreement was an unregistered agreement and hence it was not valid one for grantin