SABIR ANSARI Vs. BISHNU MANDAL,
LAWS(JHAR)-2011-5-80
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on May 06,2011

SABIR ANSARI Appellant
VERSUS
Bishnu Mandal, Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2010 in Title Suit No. 73 of 2004 whereby the injunction petition filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant dated 11.05.2009 has been rejected and by the same order the injunction petition filed by Defendants dated 22.03.2010 has been allowed and Plaintiff/Appellant is directed to maintain status quo regarding the suit property.
(2.) IT is submitted by Sri Sudarshan Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned court below had given certain findings which will prejudice the Appellant while proving his case at the stage of trial. It is submitted that in plaint, Plaintiff/Appellant had made averments that he approached Defendants' father as well as Defendants for execution of sale deed in compliance of agreement entered between them in the year 1994, but the Defendants' father as well as Defendants are not willing to execute sale deed. Hence, the present suit has been filed. From perusal of impugned order, I find that the learned court below, after going through the record, has come to the conclusion that Plaintiff/Appellant has not produced copy of receipt showing payment of any advance money to the father of Defendants. The court below has also given finding that though the suit had been filed in the year 2004, but nothing has been brought on the record to show that for the last 10 years Plaintiff/Appellant was willing to perform his part of the contract. The court below has also given a finding that an agreement to sale does not create title and interest in the proposed purchaser. Accordingly, the court below has concluded that the Plaintiff/Appellant has no prima facie case, accordingly, it refused to grant injunction in favour of Plaintiff/Appellant.
(3.) SRI Srivastava had produced certified copy of Plaint for my perusal. In the Plaint, there is vague statement that Appellant is willing to perform his part of the contract, but in the said Plaint, no averment made as to when Plaintiff tendered amount to the Defendants and/or his father for execution of sale deed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.