M.L.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) SMT . Nirmal wife of Mange Ram filed suit for permanent injunction on 16.6.1998 restraining K.P. Singh son of not known and others from raising any kind of construction in any manner whatever on land measuring 10 kanal 15-1/2 marla including land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla sold by Smt. Kalawati to Lakhpat Singh defendant. Basis of suit is the agreement to sell dated 13.12.95 alleged have been executed by Smt. Kalawati defendant qua land measuring 12 kanal 6 marla in her favour. Sale deed was to be executed in favour of Nirmal on or before 30.3.97. As per Nirmal, Kalawati did not stick to that agreement. In breach of that agreement, she sold land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla to Lakhpat Singh vide sale deed dated 13/14.3.97. Kalawati sold land measuring 1 kanal 10-1/2 marla vide 6 different sale deeds to different persons to her nominees with her consent. Though she was ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to Kalawati, but Kalwati did not show her readiness and willingness to receive the remaining sale money and execute sale deed in her favour. Sale deed in favour of Lakhpat Singh dated 13/14.3.97 confers no right on him. On these allegations, Smt. Nirmal filed suit for permanent injunction restraining K.P. Singh and others from raising any construction on land measuring 10 kanal 15-1/2 marla. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff made an application for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit property or any part thereof.
(2.) VIDE order dated 19.6.98, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad declined this application. Smt. Nirmal went in appeal which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 16.11.98 and temporary injunction was granted restraining K.P. Singh and others defendants from raising construction over the suit land till the disposal of the suit. Not satisfied with the order of Additional District Judge, Faridabad dated 16.11.98, Lakhpat Singh and other defendants have come up in revision to this Court. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Lakhpat Singh purchased land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla vide sale deed dated 13/14.3.97 bona fide for consideration unaware of agreement to sell dated 13.12.95 alleged to have been executed by Kalawati in favour of Nirmal qua land measuring 12 kanal 6 marla for a sum of Rs. 6.15 lacs as such no injunction should have been granted restraining Lakhpat Singh and others from raising construction over the land which was purchased by them bona fide for consideration. It was submitted that possession is not with the plaintiff and possession is with Lakhpat Singh. If temporary injunction is granted, there will be irreparable injury to Lakhpat Singh who has paid a sum of Rs. 4.40 lacs for land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla. It was submitted that balance of convenience is in favour of Lakhpat Singh as if it is held on the conclusion of the suit that Lakhpat Singh purchased land bona fide for consideration unaware of agreement to sell dated 13.12.95, the plaintiff's suit would be dismissed and if temporary injunction is granted, Lakhpat Singh would remain deprived of using the property purchased by him for consideration till the suit is disposed of. It was submitted that the appellate Court should not have reversed the exercise of discretion by the trial Court when the exercise of discretion by the trial Court was based on the principles of equity, justice and fair play. In Guru Nanak Education Trust and others v. Balbir Singh and others, 1995(3) RRR 722 (P&H) : 1995 PLJ 207, it was held that "Court of appeal ordinarily will not interfere with exercise of discretion by trial Court and substitute for it its own discretion. Interference is justified if lower Court acts arbitrarily or perversely, capriciously or in disregard of sound legal principles or without considering all relevant records. Mere possibility of appellate Court coming to a different conclusion on same facts and evidence will not justify interference."
(3.) IT was held in R.S. Arya v. T.R. Diwan, AIR 1998 Delhi 185, that refusal to restrain seller from making construction on the disputed property was proper where the plaintiff was holding agreement of sale but sale deed had not been executed and the possession of the plot had also not been given to him. It was submitted that how could a bona fide purchaser for consideration be deprived of the use of the property. Grant of injunction will be placing restraint on the owner so far as use of the property by him is concerned.;