Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, J.: - These two appeals filed 19 years apart from each other, are otherwise connected, as the dispute is qua the same suit property. Though the appellants in both the appeals are the same, as is also the respondent in each appeal (now represented by his LRs), however, in a manner of speaking, the suits were ‘cross-suits’ to the extent that the defendant in the earlier suit (Civil Suit No.259 of 16.11.1983) was the plaintiff in the second suit, filed on 23.01.1999. The first suit sought possession of the suit land from the defendant, whereas the second suit sought permanent injunction by the defendant in the first suit, against the plaintiff in the first suit; i.e. the plaintiff in the second suit sought permanent injunction against the LRs of the plaintiff in the first suit, qua the same suit land.

The appeals, though shown at the same serial number in the cause list, were heard separately and judgment reserved in each on different dates. However, being interconnected they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The first appeal, i.e. RSA No. 2144 of 1987, is being considered first and thereafter only the second appeal, being one arising out of a suit for permanent injunction, would be considered, consequent upon the decision in the first appeal.

Though initially both the learned counsel for the parties, were ad idem that if the appeal arising of the suit for possession (RSA No.2144 of 1987) is to be dismissed, then this appeal would be rendered infructuous, however, subsequently, Mr. Bhavnik Mehta submitted that even if that appeal was to be dismissed, the respondents would still not be entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, in view of what is contained in Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

RSA No.2144 of 1987

3. The facts in the first appeal, as taken from the judgment of the learned Courts below in the first suit, are that the plaintiff in the said suit sought a decree of possession, putting him in such possession of a half share of the suit land measuring 27 kanals 12 marlas, of which, admittedly, the plaintiff and defendant were both joint owners to the extent of half a share each. However, it was contended by the plaintiff that he had been ousted from his possession of the land, upon the defendant taking such possession of the entire land (27 kanals 12 marlas, including the half share of the plaintiff therein), from the tenants on the land, since the Kharif season of 1979 (as given in the plaint, erroneously recorded as 1973 in the judgments, at some places).

Prior to institution of the suit before the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Hoshiarpur, on 16.11.1983, it is recorded in the judgment of that Court, that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in a Court at Dasuya, which had been resisted by the defendant and was eventually returned on 05.03.1982, to be presented before the proper Court.

Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Collector), for possession and recovery of his half share of the land, which was also resisted by the defendant and finally, the suit in question in this appeal, was filed.

4. The case set up by the plaintiff (represented before this Court through his LRs), was that vide an agreement dated 26.07.1975, executed between him (plaintiff) and the defendant, the plaintiffs’ half share in the suit land was to be sold by the plaintiff to the defendant, on payment of a consideration of Rs.1600/- per kanal (thus amounting to approximately Rs.22080/- as per the first appellate court). Of that amount, Rs.5,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of the execution of the agreement to sell. It was agreed upon, that the sale deed would be executed on 05.06.1976 but that time was extended initially up to “Jeth Samvat 2034” and at the time of such extension of date, another Rs.9,000/- were paid by the defendant and a writing to that effect was also executed.

It was further contended by the plaintiff that thereafter, t