This is an appeal by unsuccessful defendants. They have suffered order of temporary injunction restraining them from selling or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

2. Facts as disclosed from the records are as follows :

(i) The suit property is the land surveyed under No. 224/3 admeasuring 8470 square metres of Village Farmagudi, Mangueshi, Bandora, Ponda Goa.

(ii) On 1-8-2003 defendants executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs. This agreement is notarised on the same day.

(iii) By the said agreement defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- ( Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Only).

3. Agreement represents that :

(a) Out of agreed consideration part of payment of Rs. 42,50,000/- was made by the plaintiffs in cash, as and by way of part payment.

(b) The balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was to be paid within a period of 12 months.

(c) Final sale deed was to be executed within 60 days after the expiry of 12 months.

4. It is alleged that :(a) The balance of Rs.2,25,000/- was paid on 8-4-2004 and Rs. 25,000/- on 19-4-2005, totalling to Rs. 2,50,000/-.

(b) These payments have been acknowledged.

(c) The plaintiffs also secured no objection certificate from Panchayat.

(d) The defendants failed to perform their part of promise in spite of plaintiffs passing entire consideration.

(e) The plaintiffs issued to the defendants a notice of legal action on 10- 2- 2006.

(f) The defendants have failed to comply.

5. Plaintiff has therefore filed Special Civil Suit No. 13/06/A seeking decree for specific performance.

6. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application against the defendants seeking temporary injunction preventing them from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest in the suit property.

7. The suit and the application for temporary injunction were opposed by the respondents by filing written statement and reply. The substance of defence is as follows :

(i) The land subject-matter had worth of Rs. 2,000/- square metre at the relevant time and its value is in multiple of the consideration represented in the agreement of sale.

(ii) Execution of document is admitted however actual promise to sell is denied.

(iii) It is alleged that for enabling the plaintiffs to find out a prospective buyer who would pay proper price, the said agreement was executed.

(iv) The defendants denied that the process of securing no objection etc.

was done by the plaintiffs on his own.

(v) Defendants have denied payment of money of whatsoever under the contract.

(vi) It is denied that the plaintiffs were put in possession. The apprehension that the defendants would sell the land was denied.

8. As regards the delivery of cheques, signed by appellant No.1, the defendants have averred in the written statement as follows :

"Defendants state that the defendant No. 1 had handed over three cheques one for Rs. 45,00,000/-, another for Rs. 4,30,000/- and the third for Rs. 1,70,000/-, all dated 2-10-2004 to the plaintiff No. 1 on 2-10-2004 with a view to raising monies from the latter in the event of an emergency. However, no such emergency arose and the defendants did not have to borrow any monies from the plaintiff No. 1. The said cheques continue with the plaintiff No. I till the defendant No. I demanded that the same be returned to him as aforesaid".

9. Learned Trial Judge has heard both the parties and decided the application for temporary injunction by order dated 23-6-2006, and granted the temporary injunction as prayed.

10. The grounds of challenge in this appeal are mainly :

(a) Failure to observe the principles of natural justice, and as learned Advocate for the defendants was not available.

(b) The plaintiffs' story was unbelievable.

(c) The purported agreement of sale did not inspire confidence.

(d) There did not exist a contract/agreement of sale at all.

11. It is not explained by the appellant save and except the explanation emerging from the quotation contained in para No. 7 su