The central legal point established in the judgment is that the requirements for invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act must be strictly met, and failure to fulfill these requirements can lead to the termination of rights and denial of injunction.

S.N.Srivastava

1. PLAINTIFFS-petitioners by way of this writ petition challenged the order dated 14.5.1993, Annexure-4 to the writ petition by which Misc. Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1993 was allowed and temporary injunction granted by the trial court was set aside. Application for temporary injunction 7C was rejected.

2. THE land in dispute is Plot Nos. 257, 270, 271 and 272 situate in village Khanpur, Pargana Najibabad, district Bijnor.

Madan Gopal, Krishna Gopal and Hari Gopal were original tenure holders. They executed three registered agreements in favour of the plaintiffs, one on 25.2.1987 by Hari Gopal and two agreements dated 24.2.1987 by Madan Gopal and Krishna Gopal. It was alleged that plaintiffs did not execute sale deed hence, a notice was sent to Madan Gopal, Hari Gopal and Krishna Gopal for getting execution of the sale deed on payment of remaining amount.

3. SUIT Nos. 203 of 1991, 204 of 1991 and 205 of 1991 for specific performance filed by petitioners were decreed on 11.9.1991 with the condition that the plaintiffs were to deposit remaining amount within a period of 15 days from the date of decree and if plaintiffs did not deposit money within 15 days, they shall not be entitled to get execution of sale.

4. IT is admitted that money was not deposited by plaintiffs in the Court either within 15 days from the date of decree or upto now. Thus, right of petitioners came to an end on expiry of fifteen days from 11.9.1991.

Madan Gopal, Hari Gopal and Krishna Gopal thereafter executed registered sale deed in favour of Narpal Singh and Munni Devi through sale deed dated 24.2.1992 for consideration of Rs. 1,47,000 and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 executed registered sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 through registered sale deed dated 2.5.1997.

5. THE plaintiffs filed Suit No. 120 of 1993, for permanent injunction for restraining defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs and harvesting the standing crops on the ground that plaintiffs Hari Gopal, Madan Gopal and Krishna Gopal executed a registered agreement to sale in their favour on 24.2.1987 and 25.2.1987 and kept the plaintiffs in possession as part performance of agreement and they are in possession, as defendants are now trying to interfere in the possession hence the suit. An application for temporary injunction for restraining defendants from cutting the standing crops and interference in possession of plaintiffs was also filed.

6. THE trial court vide order dated 7.5.1993 granted injunction in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants on execution of personal bond of Rs. 40,000.

On appeal preferred by the defendants, the order of the trial court was reversed. Injunction application was rejected.

7. SRI W. H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the plaintiffs were given possession on the land in dispute as part performance of the contract. They are entitled to get injunction against defendants. SRI Khan further urged that the trial court recorded a finding that possession of the plaintiffs was handed over as part performance of contract and the appellate court erred in law in reversing the finding of trial court which is perverse and unsustainable in law.

8. LEARNED counsel for the opposite party Sri Mahipal Singh and Sri Navin Sinha on behalf of Opposite Parties 4, 5, 6 and Opposite Parties 1 and 2 urged neither in the agreement to sale nor in the earlier suits filed by plaintiffs for specific performance any reference was made to hand over possession as part performance. He urged that plaintiffs on the basis of concealment of fact obtained temporary injunction. The finding of appellate court that possession was never handed over to the plaintiffs as part performance is a finding of fact based on material on record supported by evidence. He further urged that after the decree dated 11.9.1991 the plaintiffs did not deposit remaining money within 15 days ; his right to the land in dispute had already cam