Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
LAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
P.K.KRISHNAN – Respondent
The provided legal document does not explicitly state that a suit for injunction cannot be filed under an agreement to sell. Instead, it emphasizes that an agreement of sale itself does not convey ownership rights and that a suit for declaration based solely on such an agreement is not maintainable. The focus is on the nature of the agreement and the appropriate remedies, such as specific performance or declarations regarding the validity of subsequent sale deeds.
Specifically, the judgment clarifies that a suit for declaration that a subsequent sale deed is not binding is not permissible solely on the basis of an agreement of sale. The court discusses that the proper remedy for enforcing an agreement of sale is a suit for specific performance, not a declaration. It also notes that a suit for declaration does not require the defendant to prove that they are a bonafide transferee, which is relevant in the context of injunctions and other reliefs.
However, the judgment does not explicitly bar the filing of a suit for injunction under an agreement to sell. It primarily addresses the nature of the rights created by such agreements and the appropriate legal actions. Therefore, based on this document, it cannot be concluded that filing a suit for injunction under an agreement to sell is prohibited.
JUDGMENT
Appellants are the additional plaintiffs in O.S. 1082/1993 on the file of Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam.
2. Suit was filed by the predecessor of the appellants for a declaration that Ext.A3 sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant is not binding to him, and that it does not affect his right to get a sale deed executed over the plaint property in his favour in terms of Ext.A1 agreement of sale. With the declaratory relief as aforesaid plaintiffs canvassed for a decree directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed in his A.S.272/2001 2 favour receiving the balance sale consideration under Ext.A3 agreement. A decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction was also sought for against the defendants from committing trespass and waste in the plaint property. While the suit was pending plaintiff passed away, and his wife and children, (appellants) were impleaded as additional plaintiffs. Suit was resisted by the two defendants, both of them filing separate written statements. After trial, learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
3. Case of the plaintiff in short is that Ext.A1 agr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
