SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ashok Bhan and A.K. Mathur, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5612 of 1999. D/d. 17.3.2005.

Sunkara Venkata Rao - Appellant

Versus

K. Venkata Rao and others - Respondents

Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 53A - Party put in possession of immovable property in part performance of agreement to sell, under Section 53A - If can be dispossessed by his transferor - Trial Courts granting appellant-plaintiff permanent injunction against respondent-defendant from interfering with appellant's possession obtained under Section 53A - Single Judge of High Court reversed the judgments and decree passed by the courts below on the ground that simple suit for injunction without seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale was not maintainable - Relief of injunction was declined on the ground that the said relief being discretionary, the appellant was not entitled to relief of injunction as he had failed to file the suit for specific performance within the period of limitation - Appeal disposed of by Supreme Court with observation that the appellant be not dispossessed except in accordance with law.

[Paras 4 and 6]

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, J. - The plaintiff, the appellant herein, has filed this appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Second Appeal No. 282 of 1989 dated 21-8-1998.

2. Shortly stated the facts are:

The respondent defendants, the landowners, entered into an agreement of sale dated 7-8-1977 to sell 8.31 acres of land to the appellant plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 10,795 out of which Rs. 1500 were paid at the time of the execution of the agreement of sale and the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 9295 was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The appellant was put in possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act at the time of execution of the agreement of sale. It seems some dispute arose between the parties and ultimately the sale deed was not executed. The proposed vendee i.e. the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents herein from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The trial court found the appellant to be in possession and accordingly granted a decree injuncting the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellant. The trial court further directed that the appellant be not dispossessed except in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed the appeal. The first appellate court upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

4. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the respondents filed Second Appeal No. 282 of 1989 in the High Court. The learned Single Judge reversed the judgments and decree passed by the courts below on the ground that simple suit for injunction without seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale was not maintainable. Relief of injunction was declined on the ground that the said relief being discretionary, the appellant was not entitled to relief of injunction as he had failed to file the suit for specific performance within the period of limitation.

5. Being aggrieved against the order of the High Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

6. Admittedly, the appellant is in possession of the suit land. Without going into any other questions and leaving them open, we dispose of the appeal by observing that the appellant be not dispossessed except in accordance with law. Parties are put at liberty to work out their remedies within the framework of law. Counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents be permitted to file a suit for possession. We do not express any opinion but in view of the fact that we have left the parties to work out their remedies, the filing of suit for possession would be an option available to the respondents.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.