The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, Section 49, in determining the validity of lease deeds and memorandum of lease deeds.

Om Prakash-VII, J

This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Agra in Suit No.1041 of 2002 whereby the temporary injunction application has been allowed.

2. The facts are that the said suit was filed by the respondent no.1/ plaintiff against the appellants/ defendants and also respondent nos. 2 to 11/ defendants with the prayer for a decree for prohibitory injunction against the defendants and proforma defendants restraining them from transferring and sub-letting the property in question to any other person without consent of the plaintiff and they also be restrained from making any addition and alteration in the suit property otherwise in due course of law. A decree for mandatory injunction was also sought against the defendants in the form that they be directed to make the payment of rent to the plaintiff regularly. The respondent no.1, who is the owner of the property in dispute, leased-out it to defendant nos. 6 to 12 in the suit for a period of 10 years with effect from 1.4.1990 through registered lease deed creating right to the lessees to sub-let the property to any other person in part or in whole with the consent of the plaintiff. In lieu of that lease, the defendants, mentioned above, have leased- out the said property to the defendant nos. 1 to 5 in the suit on different rate of rents. The period of lease expired, therefore, the lessees had no further right created through the lease deed mentioned above. It is also a case that defendant nos. 1 to 5 in the suit were asked to make the payment of the rent regularly to the plaintiff but they did not pay heed over it. Notice had also been sent to the defendants but when they did not respond then on the basis of cause of action mentioned the suit with the relief mentioned above, has been filed against the defendants.

3.During pendency of the suit, an application (8C) for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 with the prayer that the defendant nos. 1 to 5 be directed to pay the rent of the disputed property to the plaintiff during pendency of the suit and defendant nos. 6 to 12 be restrained from transferring, alienating, sub-letting or changing the nature and shape of the disputed property without consent of the plaintiff during pendency of suit.

4.An objection was filed by the defendant nos. 6 to 10 on the temporary injunction in the court below mentioning therein that the plaintiff is not the sole owner of the disputed property. It is a joint family property obtained on lease for 90 years. Since plaintiff was manager (karta) of the family, he obtained the allotment order in his name taking the benefit of of his position. The lease deed executed in favour of defendant nos. 6 to 12 by the plaintiff has been admitted but it is mentioned that it was only in relation to the share of the plaintiff but not of the whole property. A fixed amount of rent has also been agreed, therefore, the defendants/ lessees have sub-let the disputed property to defendant nos. 1 to 5, which was continued. With the consent of the plaintiff, the period of lease was also extended on 13.8.1997 for 16 years. A memorandum of lease deed has also been executed between the parties. Therefore, the prayer had been made that plaintiff/ respondent no.1 is not entitled to resile from the memorandum of the lease deed and the prayer made in the temporary injunction application and also relief sought in the suit cannot be granted.

5. Affidavits and counter affidavits in temporary injunction application have also been filed by the parties before the court below.

6. The court below after hearing the parties passed the impugned order allowing the temporary injunction application observing that prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of plaintiff.

7. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the present first appeal from order has been filed o