AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 164 of 2009. There was a sale agreement, dated 02.10.2004, between the first plaintiff and the defendants barring the fourth defendant regarding the sale of 20 acres and 17 1/8 cents for the sale value of 44,37,675/- at the rate of Rs. 2,200/- per cent. The sellers belong to one family. The first plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the first defendant who received the same on behalf of others. The sellers agreed to execute the sale deed on payment of the balance amount within 6 months. On 22.10.2004, the first respondent signed a document acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 2,00,0000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with reference to the sale agreement dated 02.10.2004. But, the same was not acted upon. On the other hand it seems that the family members of the appellants herein purchased about 16 acres out of about 20 acres of the land and the same is not in dispute.
In these circumstances, another sale agreement, dated 07.03.2007 was entered into between the appellants and the respondents 1 to 3 for the sale of the remaining portion of 4.22 cents of the land on the basis of the rate fixed in the earlier agreement. Those lands stand in the name of the respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal and this is also not in dispute. However, in the sale agreement dated 07.03.2007, it is stated that 24 1/8 cents belonging to all the defendants barring the fourth defendant would also be sold to the appellants at the same rate, as mentioned in the earlier agreement, while the first respondent herein received Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 7,00,000/- already received by him. In the agreement dated 07.03.2007, one year time was fixed for payment of the balance amount and for execution of the sale deed.
In these circumstances, the respondents 1 to 3 sold the 4.22 cents by way of two sale deeds dated 03.08.2009 to the fourth respondent.
Thus the appellants filed O.S. No. 164 of 2009 praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to execute the sale deed with regard to the property measuring 4.22 cents mentioned in the schedule A, B and C in the suit by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs. 82,000/- and also for further direction to defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 13 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the land measuring 24 1/8 cents at Melur, morefully described in schedule D in the suit.
The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 328 of 2009 in O.S. No. 164 of 2009 praying for interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 4 herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the appellant of the suit properties. Initially,injunction was granted. But, the injunction petition was dismissed on 23.12.2009 after hearing both sides. This appeal is preferred against the said order dated 23.12.2009.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and also the learned Counsel for the respondents.
The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court dismissed the interim injunction petition without taking into account the admitted fact that about 16 acres of land were sold by the defendants, barring 4th defendant, to the family of the appellants/plaintiffs and the same was admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is also stated that 4.22 cents stand in the name of respondents 1 to 3, lie in the midst of the other lands that were purchased by the family members of the appellants.
The appellants further states that those original documents relating to the lands purchased by the family members of the appellants were also marked as Exhibits. The Trial Court failed to take into account these relevant factors and on the other hand proceeded that the agreement dated 02.10.2004, was time barred. It is stated that in effect the agreement dated 02.10.2004 was acted upon differently as 16 acres out of 20 acres were purchased by the family members of the appellants and the remaining 4.22 acres that stands in the name of respondents 1 to 3 was agreed to be sold to the appellants by way of later agreement dated 07.02.2007.
On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that 4.22 cents were sold to the fourth respondent by two sale deeds dated 03.08.2009 and the properties are now in possession of the fourth respondent. The respondents also disputed the very sale agreement dated 07.03.2007.
This Court is of the view that the issue as to who is in possession of the lands would be left to the decision of the Trial Court at the time of trial. As the Trial Court failed to take into account the aforesaid facts covered by the documents, i.e., the sale of about 16 acres to the family members of the appellants. I set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 23.12.2009 in I.A. No. 328 of 2009. However, it is made clear that I am not restoring the order of injunction granted earlier. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo and the issue as to who is in possession of the suit properties would be decided by the Trial Court. All issues including issue as to whether the sale agreement dated 07.03.2007 is genuine or not also could be gone into by the Trial Court at the time of trial.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The Trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs.