Jaswant Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER -defendant No. 1 - Jeeto has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 31.8.2005 (Annexure P -1) and judgment dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure P -2) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala and learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar respectively, vide which application for grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by Joginder Singh -plaintiff -respondent No. 1 was allowed by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the matter in controversy are that Joginder Singh plaintiff -respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.7.2001 regarding land measuring 25 kanals 4 marlas in revenue record described in the head note, as per jamabandi for the year 2001 -02 situated in Village Vanjanwala, District Amritsar and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs i.e. Rs. 1 lac as earnest money and Rs. 1 lac as damages, as stipulated in the agreement to sell with consequential relief of injunction restraining defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto from alienating the suit land by way of sale/mortgage etc., to defendants -proforma respondents 2 and 3 i.e. Sukhraj Kaur wife of Baz Singh and Baz Singh respectively or any other person except the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh and further restraining petitioner -defendant No. 1 Jeeto from dispossessing or interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh over the suit land till the final decision of the civil suit. It is alleged by the plaintiff -Joginder Singh respondent No. 1 that the suit land is owned by defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto and she entered into an agreement (2nd agreement) to sell with him on 27.7.2001 @ Rs. 1.50 lacs. It is further alleged that she received an amount of Rs. 1 lac as earnest money and it was stipulated in the agreement to sell that the sale deed shall be executed on or before 29.6.2002 after receiving balance amount of consideration. It is also alleged that the possession of the suit land was already with the plaintiff -Joginder Singh as he is the nephew of defendant No. 1 petitioner -Jeeto. Defendant No. 1 petitioner -Jeeto was owner of the total land measuring 63 kanals 19 marlas and she on 19.9.2000 executed an agreement to sell (1st agreement) with the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 Joginder Singh, vide which she agreed to alienate her entire land in favour of Joginder Singh. It was agreed in the agreement that defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto would execute three sale deeds by 15 Jaith 2001, by 15 Jaith 2002 and by 15 Jaith 2003. As per terms and conditions of agreement defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto had sold the land measuring 16 kanals 15 marlas to the son of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh, namely Manjit Singh vide sale deed dated 27.7.2001. On the same day, she also sold land measuring 22 kanals 15 marlas to the other son of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh, namely Gurmeet Singh. It is further alleged that on that very day i.e. 27.7.2001, defendant No. 1 petitioner -Jeeto executed an agreement to sell her remaining land in favour of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh @ Rs. 1.50 lacs per acre and received Rs. 1 lac as earnest money and further plaintiff was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is further alleged that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh has come to know from some reliable sources that defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto is going to execute sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 -respondent No. 2 Sukhraj Kaur and defendant No. 3 -respondent No. 3 Baz Singh at higher rate with an intention to breach the contract and its terms and conditions. It is also alleged that defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh from the suit land.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 -petitioner Jeeto filed written statement and took the plea that the suit is barred in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 27.7.2001, as the last date of execution of the sale deed was 15 Haari 2002 i.e. 6.7.2002. It was further alleged that plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh did not purchase any land on the basis of alleged agreement dated 19.9.2000. This agreement was neither cancelled nor adjusted. The alleged agreement to sell dated 27.7.2001 is a forged and fabricated document, prepared with the help of Deed Writer and witnesses. It is also alleged that no entry was made in the register of Deed Writer. Execution of the two sale deeds in favour of sons of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Joginder Singh, however, are admitted. It is further submitted that price of one acre of land in Village Vanjanwala is not less than Rs. 3.50 lacs as fixed by the Collector's rate. Harpreet Singh son of Baz Singh (defendant No. 3) is ready to pay Rs. 3.50 lacs per acre to defendant No. 1 -petitioner -Jeeto and agreement dated 14.6.2005 was also executed as earnest money and she is going to alienate the land in dispute in favour of Harpreet Singh and Dilbagh Singh. It is further stated that the alleged agreements dated 19.9.2000 and 27.7.2001 are vague, for less consideration and not clear. It is further alleged that agreement to sell does not create any right, title or interest in the property and no injunction can be granted. ';