In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff's lack of possession or the defendant's possession of a registered sale deed are not sufficient grounds to deny an interim injunction against creating third-party interests, as the validity of the sale agreement is a matter of trial.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal under XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the plaintiff in Civ DJ 163/2023 on the file of learned District Judge-05 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2025, whereby his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was dismissed.

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he entered into an agreement to purchase dated 11.10.2021 (the sale agreement) with the father of the respondents/defendants for the purchase of the suit property and paid approximately 10% of the agreed sale consideration as advance, in cash, at the time of execution of the agreement. As the sale agreement did not materialize, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was moved by the appellant/plaintiff, apprehending creation of third-party interest in the suit property by the respondents/defendants.

3. The respondents/defendants entered appearance and contended, inter alia, that the sale agreement relied upon by the appellant/ plaintiff is forged and fabricated and that their father had never executed any such agreement.

4. The trial court, after hearing both sides, was not inclined to allow the prayer on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff was admittedly not in possession of the suit property. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:-

“Plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the property in question since August, 2023. While there is available on record the registered sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of Sh. Sanjay Goel, all that the plaintiff has to show his prima facie case is an agreement to sell with respect to the same property in his favour (the authenticity of which is declined by the LRs of Sh. Sanjay Goel) Further, admittedly the plaintiff had only paid a nominal advance amount towards purchase of the disputed property when entering into the agreement to sell.

Thus at this stage, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff in the face of the registered sale deed available with the LRs of Sh. Sanjay Goel. The rights of the LRs of the registered owner of an immovable property cannot be lightly interfered with.

Thus no ground for grant of an interim injunction is made out. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is dismissed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up in the appeal.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that the question as to whether the sale agreement is forged and fabricated can only be adjudicated after evidence is led by both sides. In such circumstances, creation of a third-party interest during the pendency of the suit would complicate the current state of affairs and defeat the purpose of the suit. Therefore, the trial court ought to have granted the injunction prayed for.

7. Per contra, it is strenuously and persuasively submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants that no infirmity has been committed by the trial court calling for an interference by this Court. According to the learned counsel, the respondents/defendants have produced materials on record which would show that the sale agreement relied on by the appellant/plaintiff is forged and fabricated. It is also submitted that the father of the responden