An unregistered agreement to sell cannot establish possession for an interim injunction without a claim for specific performance, and credible evidence of possession is essential.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants as well as learned counsel for the defendant-Opposite Party and perused the record on board.

2. Instant first appeal from order has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant assailing the order dated 12.08.2024 whereby interim injunction application (paper No. 7-C2) under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been rejected by learned trial court.

3. Record evinces that plaintiffs-appellants have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant-respondent claiming their right, interest and possession over the property in question on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell dated 16.03.2021 and came with the plea that out of entire consideration amount i.e. 75 crores, plaintiffs have given 1 crore 11 lakhs rupees as an earnest money. The plaintiffs have also laid emphasis on the authority letter dated 11.06.2019 whereby plaintiff/appellant No. 1 had been authorized to enter the companys' premises; and supervise/look after the property. Final prayer made by plaintiffs in the plaint is quoted hereinbelow:-

“a. That by passing a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, the defendants, his agents, servants, subordinates, associates and attorneys be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the property in question and further the defendant be restrained from taking forcible possession after dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom with the help of muscles men and men power in collusion with gundas, bhoomafias and mischief mongers of the society and the defendant be further restrained from transferring, alienating and disposing of the property in question to other persons and also from encumbering the property in question with the Financial Institutions, in any manner whatsoever.

b. Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs against the defendant.

c. Any other relief (s) which may deem fit and proper in the opinion of the Hon'ble Court be also granted to the plaintiffs against the defendant.”

4. The defendant-respondent has denied execution of any such agreement to sell dated 16.03.2021 and came with the plea that authority letter dated 11.06.2019 has been issued only authorizing the plaintiff No. 1 to look after/supervise the property in question, thus, same cannot be considered as a delivery of possession in favour of plaintiffs over the property in question.

5. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have moved an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC (paper No. 7C) with the plea that in pursuance of the authority letter dated 11.06.2019, the plaintiffs-appellants are in the possession over the property in question. Out of total sale consideration amount i.e. 75 crores, the plaintiffs have already paid 1 crore 11 lakhs as an earnest money and they are ready to pay the remaining consideration amount. It is further averred in the application that defendant is throughout interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Even, not executing the registered sale deed in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Thus, in absence of interim injunction plaintiffs are in imminent danger of being evicted from the property in question. The defendant-respondent has filed objection (paper No. 22C) rebutting all the pleas as averred in the interim injunction application and contended that he has never executed any agreement to sell dated 16.03.2021 in favour of the plaintiffs and the said document is forged, fictitious and sham. The date endorsed on the rear side of the stamp paper has been manipulated. Lastly, it has been contended that unregistered document cannot be considered as an evidence. Learned trial court, vide order dated 12.08.2024, has rejected the interim injunction application basically on two grounds; firstly, possession of the plaintiffs over the property in question is suspicious/doubtful an