G. K. Mathur, J. - (1.) APPELLANTS (defendants nos. 2 and 4 of Suit No. 534 of 1984 : Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others v. M/s. Kanpur Exports (P) Ltd. and others have filed this appeal against the order dated January 15, 1991, passed by Shri Nirvikar Gupta, VII Additional district Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in the aforesaid suit.
(2.) THE relief claimed by this appeal is that the impugned order passed by the court below be modified so as to grant the prayer tor restraining the plaintiffs-respondents from interfering in the possession and ownership of the appellants over the property in dispute, bearing no. 7/169, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur and further they be restrained from making criminal trespass over it. Shri R. Asthana, Advocate, - who had filed caveat on behalf of the plaintiffs, has put in appearance at the admission stage and has filed counter affidavit to the injunction application moved in this appeal by the appellants. The appellants nave filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit. With the consent of the parties we proceed to decide the appeal finally at the admission stage.
(3.) THE plaintiffs have filed Suit No. 537 of 1984 on August 6, 1984 for specific performance of contract dated June 12, 1984 and possession against M/s. Kanpur bxports (P) Ltd., respondent no. 4, two appellants and their son Sandeep Sarraf. Surendra Kumar Mittal has also been impleaded as defendant no. 5. THE agreement dated June 12, 1984, the copy of which is Annexure 2 to the counter affidavit, was executed by M/s. Kanpur Exports (P) Ltd. through its Directors, Smt. Pushpa Devi Sarraf, her husband Mohan Lal Sarraf (the appellan(s) and their son Sandeep Sarraf in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents Jai Narain Parasrampuria, Sudhir Kumar Parasrampuria and Smt. Parvati Parasrampuria for the sale of the property in question for a consideration of rupees eleven lacks, out of which rupees ten lacs had already been paid in advance. It has also been mentioned in this agreement that the entire property had been leased out to Manoj Kumar Poddar. The appellants in their written statement, amongst other things, pleaded that the deed was spurious, sham and was secured for the removal of padlocks of the State Bank of India from the premises in suit and the plain tiffs obtained it trickfully for extraneous purpose, abusing the intimate acquaintance with answering defendant-appellants. In the written statement they further pleaded that they had agreed to sell the property in suit to defendant no. 5, Surendra Kumar Mittal, for a consideration of rupees twenty five lacs vide agreement dated June 4, 1984.;