N. K. JAIN, J. - (1.) - This special appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 15. 7. 1991 whereby the appellant-defendants have been restrained to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer the land in question and has directed to pay or deposit Rs. 10,000/- from 16. 07. 1990 to 15. 07. 1991 and to continue to deposit or pay mesne profits at the same rate for the subsequent years till the disposal of the Suit.
(2.) BRIEF facts which give rise to this special appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff Jasvinder Kaur. filed a suit against the appellant-defendants Darshan Singh, Ajeet Singh and Niranjan Singh for specific performance with the allegations that on 6. 6. 1988 the defendants agreed to sell 15 1/2 bighas of their agricultural land situated in Squire No; 22 of Chak 9 P. S. Tehsil Raisinghnagar to her @ Rs. 18,500/- per bigha, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in advance to the appellant-defendants at the time of the execution of the agreement and the possession of vacant land of killa No. 5 was also handed over to her. It was also agreed that possession of the remaining part of the land will be delivered on 13. 4. 1989 and the remaining amount will be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed on 21. 04. 1989, after obtaining permission from the Collector. It was further alleged that a sum of Rs. 22,000/- was also paid to the appellant-defendants and an entry was made on the reverse side of the agreement on 2. 11. 1989 and time for registration was extended upto 5. 4. 1990 and on 18. 11. 1989 Rs. 12,000/- were further paid. On the agreed date, the appellant-defendants did not turn up for executing the sale-deed despite receiving Rs. 84,000/- in advance and executing the agreement. In the alternative, the plaintiff-respondent has prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as damages. The respondent-plaintiff also moved an application for grant of temporary injunction requesting to issue a direction to the appellant-defendants not to sell, mortgage or alienate the disputed land to any one and to restrain them from interfering with her possession. The appellant-defendants filed reply to the application admitting execution of agreement dated 6. 6. 1988 and receipt of Rs. 84,000/- but denied the delivery of possession to the respondent-plaintiff. The learned A. D. J. after considering the material on record, held that the respondent-plaintiff has not been able to prove a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and so also the irreparable loss in her favour and dismissed the application for injunction on 3. 7. 1990. Being aggrieved, the respondent-plaintiff filed miscellaneous appeal before this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the same with the above direction. Mr. S. R. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, has submitted that the respondent-plaintiff in a suit for specific performance has asked for a decree for damages in alternative, therefore, till the decision of the suit, the appellant-defendants are not entitled to pay any interest on the advanced amount as mesne profit, and the learned Single Judge has erred in awarding the same. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The appellant-defendants have admitted the execution of the agreement to sale dated 6. 6. 1988 as well as the receipt of Rs. 84,000/- in advance. In view of this, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no prima facie case. It is on record that the permission for sale of the disputed land in favour of respondent-plaintiff has been granted by the Collector. The learned trial Court has observed that no injunction can be granted as the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed land under the agreement. The respondent-plaintiffs case is that the possession of the part of land i. e. , Killa No. 5 was handed over to her on 6. 6. 1988 at the time of the execution of the agreement and it was agreed upon that the possession of the rest of the land would be given on 13. 4. 1989. It is also on record that an application under O. VI Rule 17, C. P. C. was filed by the plaintiff alleging that the possession over the land has been forcefully taken by the defendant-appellants. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff as the execution of the agreement for sale and receipt of Rs. 84,000/- arc admitted by the defendant-appellants. The defendant-appellants instead of giving possession of the remaining land to the plaintiff-respondent have forcibly taken back possession. Be that as it may, if during the pendency of the suit the defendant-appellants alienate the property to some other person, it will certainly cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff and thus the learned lower Court has erred in not granting injunction and in not safeguarding the interest of the plaintiff. The learned Single Judge has rightly found that all the ingredients are established in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellants are enjoying the fruits of the land as well as of the said Rs. 84,000/ -. It is well within the power of the Court while granting injunction to protect the rights of the parties and to impose reasonable terms and conditions. In our opinion, the argument of Mr. Bhandari that learned Single Judge was not justified to impose the said condition till the decision of the suit as, in the alternative, damages have already been claimed in the suit, has no substance. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge will not cause any inconvenience to the defendant-appellants. The direction to pay or deposit Rs. 10,000/- by 15. 8. 1991 and for subsequent years till the disposal of an suit is fully justified. We find no error or illegality in this order. The appellants are given the option to pay to the respondent within three months from today the entire said amount of Rs. 84,000/- with interest at the rate of 13% p. a. from the date of payment to the date of return through account payee draft and if they do not opt for it the order of the learned Single Judge will follow.
(3.) THE said option and the direction of the learned Single Judge for depositing in the trial Court or paying to the plaintiff-respondent Rs. 10,000/- every year till the disposal of the suit will not prejudice either party during the trial and in the decision of the suit. THE time for depositing/paying the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the period from July 16, 1990 to July 15, 1991 is extended till October, 1991. In the result, the special appeal is summarily dismissed with the above observations. .;