IMPORTANT POINT
Injunction--Suit for specific performance of contract directing defendants to execute conveyance deed after receiving balance sale consideration is not maintainable in form of suit for mandatory in junction.

Alok Singh, J. (Oral).:- This is the defendants’ second appeal assailing judgment and decree dated 25.9.1986 passed by learned trial Court/Sub- Judge, Ist Class, Amritsar and judgment and decree dated 18.5.1987 passed by learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, Amritsar. Both the Courts below have decreed suit of the plaintiffs (herein respondents) for permanent prohibitory injunction and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants (herein appellants) to receive balance installments of the sale consideration and then to execute the conveyance deed in favour of plaintiffs/respondents.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs had filed suit with the allegation that plaintiffs are in possession of the land measuring 41 kanals fully described in the plaint; Land was banjar Kallar and was fit for cultivation; Plaintiffs had spent more than Rs.10,000/- over the land; Suit land was undisposed off evacuee agricultural land; Tehsildar (Sales-cum-Mahal) Tarn Taran invited applications from the occupants of such lands for the transfer of the same to them on the basis of possession from Rabi, 1978; Plaintiffs being in occupation of the aforesaid land applied for transfer of the land on the basis of their possession; SDO (Civil), Tarn Taran-cum- Sales Commissioner approved the transfer of the suit land to the plaintiffs on 22.7.1980 @ Rs.1000/- per killa and at the total price of Rs.5125/-; The amount was to be paid in installments; Plaintiffs paid all the installments except the last two installments, however all of a sudden, Tehsildar refused to receive the balance two installments and also refused to execute the conveyance deed in favour of plaintiffs saying land in dispute belongs to Central Government; It was wrongly decided to be transferred in favour of plaintiffs while authorities under the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act 1976 are not competent to transfer the land belonging to Central Government.

3. Defendants/appellants refuted claim of the plaintiffs; Besides all the legal pleas about the maintainability of the suit defendants took defence that suit of the plaintiffs is premature and Rehabilitation Department has no right to sell the said land to the plaintiffs. The important defense taken by defendants is that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party in the absence of Rehabilitation Department of the Central Government.

4. Learned trial Court decreed suit of the plaintiffs having found that plaintiffs had already paid bigger part of the sale consideration and only two installments were left to be paid. Learned trial Court further observed that plaintiffs are in occupation of the property in dispute, hence, are entitled for the transfer of the land in their favour.

5. Defendants/appellants challenged the order of learned trial Court before the first Appellate Court. Appeal of the defendants/appellants was dismissed by the first Appellate Court, although first Appellate Court has observed that land was of Central Government.

6. Feeling aggrieved from the judgments passed by both the Courts below defendants/appellants have approached this Court by way of present second appeal by invoking Section 100 C.P.C.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the present appeal, following substantial questions of law are required to be answered for just and fair adjudication of lis between the parties:-

i) As to whether suit for specific performance of the contract directing the defendants to execute the conveyance deed after receiving balance sale consideration is maintainable in the form of suit for mandatory injunction?

ii) As to whether authorities under the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act 1976 have any jurisdiction to transfer the land belonging to the Central Government?

9. Answer to Substantial Question of Law No.1:- The gist of the case is that defendants agreed to transfer the land in favour of plaintiffs for Rs.5125/-.