A petitioner can be granted temporary injunction to prevent the alienation of property during the pendency of a suit for specific performance while establishing possession under a registered agreement.

1. This petition under Art.227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2017, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow by means of which the application for grant of temporary injunction moved by the petitioner in Regular Suit No. 2492 of 2015 was rejected as well as the order dated 06.01.2018, passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Lucknow in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 93 of 2017 upholding the order dated 21.07.2017. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and Sanat Kumar, the respondent no. 2 will also be referred to by their ranks in the suit as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' respectively.

2. The defendant, was the owner of 1/3rd share in Khatauni No. 00272, Khasra Nos. 263, 397 - C, 597, 690, 709, 657, 658, 686/1, 688, 689/1, 740/1 situated in village Hardoialal Nagar, Pargana Kakori, Tehsil and District Lucknow. An agreement to sell dated 18.01.2014 with respect to 0.4226 hectare of the above mentioned khasra numbers was entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff. The agreement to sell was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar (Fourth), Lucknow on 18.01.2014.

3. As per the said agreement, the defendant was to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.20 lakhs. A sum of Rs.15 lakhs was paid in cash as earnest money at the time of signing of the agreement itself and Rs.5 lakhs were to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was supposed to be executed within an year of the signing of the agreement to sell, in favour of the plaintiff or a person nominated by her.

4. On 12.01.2015, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell against the defendant. The plaint, after referring to the terms of the agreement to sell, averred that after executing the agreement to sell, the defendant started demanding a higher amount as sale consideration to which the plaintiff did not agree; that thereafter the defendant threatened to sell the suit property to third parties for higher consideration; that the repeated attempts of the plaintiff to persuade the defendant to execute the sale deed in her favour turned out to be futile; that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and get the sale deed registered by paying the balance consideration; that inspite of a notice dated 29.08.2014 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant failed to perform its obligations under the registered agreement to sell. The plaintiff was, therefore, left with no other option but to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.01.2014.

5. During the pendency of the suit the defendant sold a part of the suit property by executing three sale deeds in relation to the suit property, in favour of third parties.

6. On 03.11.2016, the plaintiff filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under O.39 R.1 & R.2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in order to restrain the defendant from altering the nature of the suit property or alienating the same to any other person. It was inter alia stated in the said application that during the pendency of the suit the defendant had sold a part of the suit property by executing three sale deeds dated dated 09.07.2015, 25.07.2015 and 03.11.2015 in favour of third parties; that the suit property being agricultural land, the defendant cannot be allowed to change the nature of the land; that the de