Prima facie defective title and disclosure duties support injunction and possession under a sale agreement.

A sale agreement must be read as a whole, and a clause stating that possession was delivered on the date of execution was treated as consistent with the remaining terms and with part performance. On the facts, a notification under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, the seller's silence after notices pointing to title defects, and the inability to explain title adequately created a strong prima facie case of defective title and suppression of material facts. The temporary injunction restraining alienation was therefore justified and confirmed, and the respondent was held to have been put in possession on the date of the agreement.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order granting temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property was justified on the basis of the prima facie defective title and alleged suppression of the escheat proceedings; (ii) whether the agreement for sale placed possession of the property with the respondent on the date of the agreement.

Issue (i): Whether the order granting temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit property was justified on the basis of the prima facie defective title and alleged suppression of the escheat proceedings.

Analysis: The existence of a notification under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 in respect of the property, the appellants' silence after notices specifically raising the defect in title, and the inability to satisfactorily explain the title created a strong prima facie case that the title was defective and that material facts were suppressed. The seller's duty to disclose material defects in title was attracted, and the respondent's apprehension of alienation pending trial was therefore not unfounded.

Conclusion: The temporary injunction was justified and was rightly confirmed in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement for sale placed possession of the property with the respondent on the date of the agreement.

Analysis: The agreement had to be read as a whole. The clauses dealing with final conveyance after payment of balance consideration and the clause stating that possession was given on the date of the agreement were held to be clear and not repugnant. The latter clause was treated as an interim delivery of possession consistent with part performance, and the respondent's possession was also supported by the surrounding conduct and notices.

Conclusion: Possession was held to have been delivered to the respondent on the date of the agreement.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the injunction order was sustained, and the respondent was protected by a direction to secure the balance sale consideration while the suit was directed to be decided expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale agreement must be construed as a whole, and where a prima facie defect in title is shown with nondisclosure of material facts, a court may confirm temporary injunction and protect the other side by appropriate equitable terms.

---