TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE two appeals are by two different appellants but the facts of the two cases are so intermingled that they are required to be decided by common judgment. Both the appellants are aggrieved against the order of the trial Court passed in two mise. applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC dated 19. 09. 2005 in two separate suits. e trial Court allowed the injunction applications filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and restrained the appellants/defendants - purchasers of the plot in dispute by registered sale-deed, from alienating the property and from parting with possession of e plot in dispute and further restrained them from raising any construction over the plot in dispute. It will be worth while to mention the relationship of the persons who are involved in the land dealing. One Bhoor Chand - defendant in civil original Suit No. 36/2005 and another Sampat Raj - defendant in civil original suit No. 37/2005 are the owners of two different plots described in the respective plaints. Bhoor Chand is brother-in-law of Sampat Raj. According to the plaintiffs, by oral agreement, defendants Bhoor Chand and Sampat Raj agreed to sell their plots for a consideration of Rs. 5,60,000/- for each plot. Bhoor Chand agreed to sell the plot to Ashok Bhandari whereas Sampat Raj agreed to sell the plot to Vijaymal Jain. at the time of oral agreement, both sellers were paid Rs. 60,000/- each for their respective plot and thereafter, both Bhoor Chand and Sampat Raj executed agreements for sale of the respective plots on 10. 03. 2003 and at that time, both the sellers received Rs. 2,40,000/- each thereby both the sellers received Rs. 3 lakhs each in total by 10. 03. 2003, against the total sale consideration of Rs. 5,60,000/ -. In the agreements executed by both the sellers in favour of the two plaintiffs, one Hasti Mal Chhajerh is the attesting witness. This Hasti Mal Chhajerh is bother-in-law of Seller Sampat Raj. Therefore, these persons - 2 sellers and 1 attesting witness are closely related to each other. Both Bhoor Chand and Sampat Raj are the attesting witness in the agreement to sell executed by each another. In the agreement dated 10. 03. 2003 alleged to have been executed by Sampat Raj, one Surendra Jain also put his signatures as attesting witness in addition to Hasti Mal Chhajerh. In the agreements, it has also been provided that since the land in question is a small piece of agriculture land and was property of Jodhpur Model Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Jodhpur, therefore, the sellers shall deposit Rs. 100/- per square meter with UIT, Jodhpur and in case, any more amount will be demanded on this account by the UIT for the plots in question, then the plaintiffs shall deposit the said excess amount in UIT, Jodhpur. It is also provided in the agreements that before execution of the sale-deed, the sellers shall obtain the patta for the plots in dispute from the UIT, Jodhpur and shall get it registered and thereafter, they will give a notice to the purchasers informing them that they have performed their part of contract and thereafter, the purchasers shall pay the balance amount to the sellers and shall execute proper sale-deed in their favour. According to both the plaintiffs, they requested their sellers several times for execution of the sale-deed after completion of all the formalities in terms of the agreements dated 10. 03. 2003 of getting the proper deed from UIT, Jodhpur. According to the plaintiffs, the vendors always assured that they will complete the formalities but since there was stay against the grant of any patta or lease by the UIT by regularisation or otherwise, therefore, the vendors could not obtain the patta/lease deed from UIT and, therefore, sale-,deeds were not executed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs believed and did not insist more.
(3.) ON 26. 08. 2005, the plaintiffs found that some construction activities have been started by some persons on the plots in question and on enquiries, they found that the appellants are proposing to raise construction over the plots. Plaintiff Ashok Kumar was informed by Ganesh Ram, husband of present appellant Smt. Gomti, that the plot has been purchased by his wife from Bhoor Chand and appellant Murlidhar Nagar informed plaintiff Vijaymal Jain that he has also purchased the plot from Sampat Raj. The prospective purchasers/plaintiffs immediately contacted the sellers through Hastimal Chhajerh, attesting witness and close relative of both the sellers, as the sellers were residing at Banner. The sellers gave vague replies and they told that when they will come to Jodhpur, they will explain all the facts. The plaintiffs apprehending illegal construction on their purchased plots filed the suit for specific performance of contract with a plea that in case any documents have been got executed by the appellants, then those documents are null and void, against the interest of the plaintiffs. It is also submitted by the plaintiffs that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. In addition to the above, the plaintiffs, further took a plea that the sellers collusively did some act but said acts of sellers cannot affect the rights of the plaintiffs by virtue of oral agreement dated 01. 03. 2003 and written agreement dated 10. 03. 2003. In the suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiffs also prayed relief of permanent injunction that the defendants, which include the original owners of the plots and subsequent purchasers, be restrained from alienating the plots in question and be restrained from raising any construction over the plots. The plaintiffs placed on record the original agreements to sale in their suits alongwith copy of sketch map of the area. The defendants were served with notice of the injunction application, upon which the defendants - original owners of the plots and appellants - purchasers of the plots filed their replies to the injunction application. The sellers supported the case of subsequent purchasers and denied the agreements to sale set up by the plaintiffs. In both the cases, attesting witness Hastimal Chhajerh submitted his affidavit in support of the plaintiffs and admitted his signatures on the agreements and also submitted that Bhoor Chand and Sampat Raj entered into agreement to sale in favour of both the plaintiffs on 01. 03. 2003 and thereafter written agreement were also executed by the vendors in favour of both the plaintiffs. ;