K.Vasuki v. Madan Lall And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/8/2024 K. Vasuki Vs.
Madan Lall and others Mr. K.M. B. Jayapal .... for the petitioner January 17, 2024 [SR] Item No.2 The revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated November 08, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair in Misc.Appeal No.18 of 2023. The learned lower appellate court did not pass any ad-interim order of injunction, in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.
Mr. KMB Jayapal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that, as the plaintiff was in possession of a part of the property in question, necessary interim protection ought to have been granted till the disposal of the appeal.
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of contract. According to the petitioner, the predecessor-ininterest of the defendant nos.1 to 6 had entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property with the plaintiff and had accepted Rs.61,000/- as consideration.
In part performance of such agreement, the plaintiff was also put in possession of the property. Thereafter, the defendant no.7 being a stranger, started disturbing the petitioner. The petitioner approached the defendant nos.1 to 6 for execution of the deed of sale on the basis of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and Ram Lall. When the defendant nos 1 to 6 refused to do so, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff also filed an application for injunction. The application for injunction came up for hearing before the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair.
The learned Trial Judge, upon considering the claim of the petitioner and the written objection filed by the defendant no.7, came to the conclusion that there was no, prima facie, case for granting any injunction.
The contention of the defendant no.7 was taken into consideration. The defendant no.7 contended that Ram Lall had never agreed to convey the property in favour of the plaintiff. An area measuring 0.650 sq.mtrs under survey No.82/1 was recorded in the name of Palani Murugan and was classified as a house site. A sale deed was executed between Palani Murugan and the defendant no.7. The property was recorded in the name of Palani Murugan.
It was informed to the defendant no.7 that the plaintiff was a tenant under the Palani Murugan. The plaintiff was running a pan shop. As and when required, the plaintiff would vacate the area. Till that time, the plaintiff would pay a monthly rent of Rs.5000/- to the defendant no.7. Plaintiff relied on the first page of the record of holding, photocopy of the registration certificate of the business and some photographs of the suit property. The learned court recorded that the plaintiff was in admitted possession of the portion of the suit property and was running of a pan shop. However, according to the learned court, the cash receipt could not be treated as an agreement for sale and the issue of part performance of the contract by Ram Lall could not be decided without there being a full-fledged trial. No agreement was forthcoming.
The application for injunction was rejected. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2023. The learned appellate Court was of the view that the ad interim prayer for injunction filed in Misc. Appeal should be decided upon hearing the respondents/opposite parties No.1 to 7.
It is informed to the Court that the matter has been fixed for hearing on January 23, 2024. I do not find any reason to keep the revisional application pending. Records do not show that there is any imminent danger of dispossession
as the plaintiff's possession in the suit property has been recorded by the learned trial Judge court and the defendant no.7 has also accepted that his vendor had informed him that the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the property in question and was running a pan shop upon paying a rent of Rs.5000/- per month.
Under such circumstances, the revisional application is disposed of with a direction upon the lower appellate court to decide the prayer for ad interim protection/injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiff, within two weeks from the next date fixed, by passing necessary orders.
It is further directed that the Misc. Appeal itself should be disposed of expeditiously. The suit is already at the stage of framing of issues and the suit can be expedited. The revisional application is disposed of on the above terms.
( Shampa Sarkar, J. )