Injunctions in suits for specific performance may be granted based on prima facie cases, despite property sales to third parties, per Sections 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act and 37 of the Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

1. Heard Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Maha Prasad, for the appellants and Ms. Shreya Gupta for the respondents no.1 and 2.

2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and, therefore, the Court proceeds to decide the appeal finally.

3. The first appellant was defendant no.4 in Original Suit No.35 of 2024, whereas second appellant was subsequently impleaded as defendant no.6 on account of a sale deed executed in his favour. Both the appellants have assailed the order dated 24.05.2024 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras has restrained first and third sets of defendants from changing nature of the suit property, raising constructions thereon, causing damage to the same and from further alienating it.

4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a registered agreement for sale dated 04.01.2023 was executed in favour of four persons, i.e. respondents no.1 and 2, appellant no.1 and respondent no.7, which contained a stipulation that the sale deed would be executed within a period of one year. Before expiry of the period of one year, executant Ram Kishan died on 05.09.2023 and his successors, i.e. respondents no.3 and 4, denied execution of the sale deed by refusal pursuant to a notice issued by the plaintiffs as regards execution of the sale deed and, subsequently too, by issuing notice dated 30.12.2023 to the plaintiffs disclosing their intention not to sell the property to the plaintiffs but to cancel the agreement. It is further contended that the suit was instituted on 13.02.2024 and four days prior thereto, a registered sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant no.2 and he became owner thereof and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in granting injunction against true owner in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Per contra, Ms. Shreya Gupta submits that three sale deeds were executed in the instant case, one in favour of the appellant no.2 and other two sale deeds in favour of respondents no.5 and 6 and all the purchasers are relatives of appellant no.1 who was one of the persons in whose favour agreement was executed. It is further contended that a registered agreement for sale cannot be cancelled by a notice simplicitor and there has to be either a registered document cancelling the same or a decree passed by the civil court. Further, attention of the Court has been drawn towards second paragraph of joint written statement filed by the defendants no.1 and 2 wherein there is an admission regarding execution of the agreement for sale and payment of advance money of Rs.17,10,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- In support of plea of injunction, reliance has been placed upon a recent decision of Supreme Court dated 22.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.13001 of 2024 ( Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi and others ) and another judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Sapna Tiwari Vs. Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.3, Lko and another: 2018 SCC Online 6751

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that only two of the persons in whose favour agreement for sale had been executed are plaintiffs in the suit in question. Remaining two persons were arrayed as defendants and one of them has become appellant in the present appeal. Second appellant is purchaser through one sale deed executed prior to institution of the suit. All the purchasers have already been impleaded in the suit. The sale deed having been executed in bet