G. S. N. Tripathi, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal arising out of judgment and order dated 17-8-92 passed by Civil Judge, Agra in OS. No. 578 of 92 of that court, whereby he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-appellant to grant interim injunction in his favour.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed O.S. No. 578 of 92 in the court of the learned Civil Judge wherein he prayed the following reliefs J- (A) THE defendants no. 1, 2 and 5 may be ordered to leave the property in suit and not to transfer by way of sale or otherwise the property in suit or any part thereof to any person and not to carry out further constructions on the land in suit and not to damage or destroy the boundary wall, room, temple and well in suit. (B) THE defendant no. 1 may be ordered to remove the constructions raised on the property In suit within the time fixed by the court and in default, they may be ordered to be demolished in court. (C) Cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants. (D) Any other relief as the court may deem just and proper, may also be granted to the plaintiff against the defendants. Admittedly the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property. The defendant no. 1 carries on housing colonizing business in the name of the defendant no. 1 i e. 'Singh Estate Pvt. Ltd.' The defendant no. 1 through its Managing Director Dr. Satya Pal Singh entered into an oral agreement with the plaintiff in respect of the disputed property in October 1990. The following terms were settled :- (i) The defendant no. 1 would get prepared a sub-Division Plan and would get the same sanctioned and would bear all the expenses necessary therefor. (ii) The defendant no. 1 would, at its own cost raise on the said land dwelling units within two years by taking advance from the intending purchasers or otherwise after getting building plan sanctioned. Expenses of sanction would also be borne by the defendant no 1. (iii) The plaintiff would be paid price of the land at the rate of Rs. 800/- per sq yard. (iv) The intending purchaser or any person would not be inducted into possession of the land or building unless and until the price of that part of land as aforesaid, was paid to the plaintiff. (v) On payment of the price aforesaid the plaintiff was to execute a sale deed of that part in favour of the person nominated by the defendant no. 1. (vi) That if the defendant would commit breach of the agreement aforesaid, the plaintiff will have a right to restrain the defendant no. 1 from entering upon the land, carrying out and permitting to be carried out any construction and development work on the land and also to get the constructions demolished." The plan was prepared by the defendant no 1 and the plaintiff submitted the same in the Nagar Mabapalika, Agra for approval. Plotting was accordingly done and submitted to Agra Development Authority for necessary sanction. The defendant no. 1 started raising constructions and buildings were completed on plot nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Out of them possession has already been delivered by the defendant no. 1 to the defendants 2 and 5 over plot nos. 5 and 8 without getting the sale deed executed from the plaintiff The plaintiff has also learnt that plot nos. 6. 7, 9 and 11 have been allotted to defendant nos. 3, 4, 6, .and 7 respectively. But possession has not been delivered to them although the same may be delivered at any time. Surreptitiously by the defendant no. 1 to these allottees. The defendant no. 1 has no right to induct any person on the said plots and buildings without the concurrence of the plaintiff. Construction over plot nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not been completed. The defendant no 1 has no right to continue these constructions unless upto-date accounts are cleared by it and money paid to the plaintiff as per the agreement supra. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs aforesaid, on 23-7-92.
(3.) ALONG with the suit an application for the interim injunction was also moved by the plaintiff in which it was prayed as follows :- (a) that the defendant no. 1, 2 and 5 be ordered not to transfer by way of sale or otherwise the property in suit or any part thereof to any person. (b) Defendant bo. I be ordered not to carry out further constructions on the land in suit and (c) Not to damage or destory the boundary wall, room, temple and well in suit till the disposal of the case finally, In his counter affidavit. Sri Satya Pal Singh on behalf of defendant no 1 has admitted that he is the Managing Director of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff delivered possession on 2118.67 sq. yards of land over which plotting has been done by the defendant; In fact, the plaintiff wanted to sell the land to the defendant for constructing small dwelling houses with the moneys to be spent by the defendant do. 1. The following terms were orally settled :- (1) The defendant no, 1 will construct one house for the plaintiff who will execute the sale deed after possession is delivered to him. (2) The price of the land settled between the parties was at the rate of Rs 200/- per sq. yards. (3) One dwelling house out of the same was to be constructed for the plaintiff the price of which will be adjusted out of the price of the land. (4) Possession shall be delivered to the intending purchasers by the defendant no. 1 of the building and the land under neath and the plaintiff will execute sals deeds in favour of the intending purchasers on the request of the defendant no. 1. (5) Price was to be paid to the plaintiff after the delivery of possession to all the purchasers and the sale deeds shall be executed by the plaintiff thereafter. The entire project was to be completed by October, 1992. ;