Hon’ble. Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava, counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed from the order of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hapur, Ghaziabad dated 28.1.2012, passed in Suit No. 89 of 2011, by which the application for interim injunction filed by the appellant has been rejected.

3. The appellant filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 89 of 2011) for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession and ejecting him from the land in dispute and transferring it to any other person. It has been stated in the plaint that Narendra Kumar (defendant-1) has 6.25% share and Pawan Kumar (defendant-2) has 12.5% share in the land of which total area was 2,700 sq. yard, situated in mohalla Feezganj Road, Hapur, district Ghaziabad. On 12.6.2009, defendant-1 took Rs. 10,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- and executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff for selling his share in the aforesaid land for sale consideration of Rs. 8,50,000/- He agreed to execute the sale-deed before 11.9.2009. Defendant-2 also took Rs. 10,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- and agreed to sell his 12.5% share for Rs. 17 lakhs before 11.9.2009 and executed an agreement to sell dated 12.6.2009 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants-1 and 2 have not executed the sale-deed within the aforesaid period in compliance of the agreement dated 12.6.2009. The plaintiff therefore sent a notice dated 29.10.2009 through post office under certificate of posting. On service of the aforesaid notice, defendants-1 and 2 informed that since a dispute between the co sharers was going on, as such, it was not possible for them to execute the sale-deeds. Accordingly, defendants-1 and 2 executed a receipt dated 15.11.2009 acknowledging the agreement dated 12.6.2009 and further taking of earnest money of Rs. 2,40,000/- and Rs. 4,40,000/-, respectively and time for executing the sale-deed was extended up to 14.10.2010 and the plaintiff was given possession over the property to be transferred. The dispute between the co-sharers of defendants-1 and 2 has been settled through family settlement dated 4.8.2010, but defendants-1 and 2 have not turned up for executing the sale-deed. Therefore, the plaintiff gave a notice dated 27.9.2010 to defendants-1 and 2 for executing the sale-deed. The plaintiffs came to know that Narendra Kumar (defendant-1) and his family members, executed an agreement to sell dated 4.9.2010 in favour of Ajay Goyal (defendant-3). Pawan Kumar (defendant-2), his brother Praveen Kumar and his mother Smt Nirmala Devi, executed an agreement dated 6.9.2010 in respect of their share in the property in dispute in favour of defendant-3. On coming to know about the aforesaid agreements, the plaintiff served another notice dated 20.11.2010 for getting the aforesaid agreement canceled. Inspite of service of notice, defendants-1 and 2 have not taken any step for cancellation of the agreements executed in favour of defendant-3. The plaintiff came to know that in the meantime, Narendra Kumar (defendant-1) has executed a sale-deed dated 25.9.2010 in respect of his share in favour of defendant-3. The defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the property in dispute. The plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his obligations under the agreements dated 12.6.2009 and 15.11.2009 and get the sale-deed executed in his favour. As such, he is entitled to protect his possession over the property in dispute. On these allegations, the suit for permanent injunction has been filed.

4. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed an application for interim injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession over the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.

5. The trial Court issued notices in the application for temporary injunction and summons in the suit. On service of the summons and notices, the defe