Parties entering into agreements during litigation are denied protective rights under Order XXI, emphasizing that statutory tenant claims cannot override existing injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

After hearing the arguments of Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Caveator, the main case itself is taken up since argument in C.M.P and Appeal Suit are being one and the same.

2. The brief facts necessary for determination of this case are as under:-

(a) The respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2007 for the specific performance of the suit sale agreement dated 27.03.2006 against one Dunand Evelyne Christiane - the original first defendant. On her death, the respondents 4 & 5 were brought on record. The suit is based upon the sale agreement entered between the first respondent and the said Dunand Evelyne Christiane on 27.03.2006. The lower Court records reveals that, on 25.04.2007, an interim injunction was granted against the respondent- landlord and the same was made absolute on 05.09.2007.

(b) Pending suit, the first defendant has filed a written statement and the second defendant also filed a separate written statement.

(c) As the first defendant died and his brother and sister were impleaded as defendants 4 & 5 in the suit and D2 was cross examined the P.W.1. The first round of litigation has completed and on appeal the case was remitted back.

3. Based upon the evidence let in by the parties during the trial P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A12, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the sale agreement is related to the year 2006 and accordingly, while accepting the case of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

4. Taking note of the passage of time has enhanced the balance of the sale consideration to Rs.45 lakhs, however, it was after deducting of Rs.30 lakhs paid in the year 2006 as advance received by the original first defendant during her lifetime and the balance of Rs.45 lakhs was ordered to pay along with interest of 12% from the date of the sale agreement till the date of the decree for getting the sale deed.

5. Against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 2007 dated 07.11.2019, no appeal has been filed and decree has become absolute as final.

6. Lower Court records reveals that E.P.No.383 of 2019 was filed for execution of the sale deed and for handing over the possession. The sale deed was executed by the Court and the same was registered on 03.09.2019. Another Execution Petition No.383 of 2017 was filed on 23.09.2019 for delivery of possession. It appears that the present appellant filed in E.A.No.88 of 2021 on 17.08.2021 raising objection.

7. Counter was filed by the decree-holder on 25.09.2021. A power of attorney appears to have been executed by the appellant-objector on 02.12.2021 after filing the objection petition.

8. After contest, the Execution Court has come to the conclusion that since the tenancy agreement was entered between the original land owner- original first defendant during the pendency of the specific performance suit in O.S.No.23 of 2007 and in gross violation of injunction order dated 25.04.2007, the Execution Court has held that since the lease agreement is dated 01.12.2012 which was came into existence during the pendency of the suit and as well as during the injunction order being in force has held that the person who claims to be in possession is not entitled for the benefit of protection under Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C and dismissed the application and hence this Appeal Suit.

9. It is seen that initially this appeal appears to have been filed as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.397 of 2015. The roaster Judge, by an order dated 06.06.2024 has observed that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sameer Singh and another V. Abdul