- (1.) I. P. Vasishth, J. It is a defendant's appeal against the order dated 29-7-1989 passed by Sri S. P. Singh, 1st Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur in a suit for per manent injunction brought by the respondent-plaintiff.
(2.) THE gist of the matter is that the plaintiff was in possession of the demised premises consisting of a residential house situated in Mohalla Majorganj (Rohatta), Pargana Meeranpur, Tehsil and District Sultanpur as a tenant under the defendant for quite a long time, that on 20-1-1974 the parties entered into a sale agreement. THE defendant agreed to transfer the title of the said house in favour of the plaintiff against a total consideration of Rs. 7 lacs only to be paid in easy instalments during the next sixteen years, meanwhile he received an amount of Rs. 24,0000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff. THE plaintiff was also to bear the registration expenses of the sale deed. It was further averred that by 26-5-1988 the plaintiff cleared off the entire sale consideration of Rs. 7 lacs and thus the parties executed another agree ment on the same day i. e. 26-5-1988 endorsing the incident of payment. It was also agreed that the defendant would get the sale deed executed in the next thirty days, in a manner of speaking the outer limit for getting the sale deed executed upto 19-1-1990, as fixed in the original agreement dated 20-1-1974, was reduced. It was pleaded that during the aforesaid period, and in the legitimate expecta tion of the fulfilment of the agreement the plaintiff incurred considerable expenses by making certain improvements and additions in the demised premises which probably promoted the defendant to back out from the agreement and as such the latter started threatening his possession as well as title by opening negotiations with third parties for the sale of the house. Forced by the circumstances, the plaintiff thus brought a suit for permanent injunction to protect his possession. During the pendency of the suit, he prayed for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC to restrain the defendant's interference in his possession and also to refrain him from alienating the suit property.
(3.) THE plaintiffs suit as well as prayer for interim relief was resisted by the defendant on the short ground of denial of the sale agreement. For the obvious reasons receipt of earnest money sale consideration or any part thereof was also denied. Of course, his possession in pursuance to the tenancy rights was not seriously contested. Under the impugned order the learned trial court restrained the defendant from evicting the plaintiff from the suit house in any illegal manner and further asked him to refrain from selling the house to any other person till the final decision of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant brought the instant appeal.;