TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 6.8.1982 with her (Nirmal) for a sum of Rs. 6,15,0007-i.e. at the rate of Rs. 4 lacs per acre. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale dated 13.12.1995, sale deed was to be executed and registered upto 30.3.1997 on receipt of the balance sale consideration. Smt. Kalawati received Rs. 50,000/- at the time of execution of the said agreement of sale as an advance. She further received Rs. 30,0007- as part payment on 19.4.1996 against receipt. Kalawati thus received Rs. 80,000/- from her in all. On 5.3.1997, Nirmal went to the house of Kalawati defendant and requested her to be ready to execute sale deed in her favour in pursuance of the said agreement on 30.3.1997 as stipulated in that agreement. Kalawati put her off on one pretext or the other. She came to know that land measuring 12 kanal 6 marla which was the subject matter of the agreement of sale was being transferred by Kalawati in favour of her sons Yudhvir Singh and others in collusion with her sons. With that thing in view, her sons filed suit against her for declaration titled Tejvir Singh and others v. Smt. Kalawati in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad on 10.3.1997. Nirmal mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....la sold to Lakhpat Singh defendant. 2. Vide order dated 19.5.1998, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad declined the grant of temporary injunction so far as land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla purchased by Lakhpat Singh defendant is concerned. Temporary injunction was granted restraining Kalawati and others defendants from alienating the remaining land. It was also mentioned that in case the suit property is alienated during the pendency of the suit, the principle of lis pendens shall be applicable on the party alienating the suit property. Smt. Nirmal (plaintiff) went in appeal which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 16.11.1998. Still not satisfied, Smt. Nirmal has come up in revision to this Court whereby she has prayed that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC be allowed in toto and temporary injunction be granted restraining the defendants-respondents from further alienating the land in dispute. 3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she holds an agreement to sell dated 13.12.1995 whereby Kalawati had agreed to execute sale deed in her favour qua 12 kanal 6 marlas of land @ Rs. 4 lacs per acre out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is not granted, people can run away with impunity and refuse to perform the agreement solemnly entered by them. It was submitted that the property should be preserved as it is. 5. Learned counsel for Lakhpat Singh, on the other hand, submitted that he is a bona fide purchaser for consideration of Rs. 4,40,000/-. At the time when he purchased this land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla, he did not have any knowledge or notice of the alleged agreement dated 13.12.1995 infavour of Smt. Nirmal alleged to have been executed by Kalawati. It was further submitted that Smt. Nirmal is the daughter's daughter of Kalawati, as such she set up false agreement alleged to have been executed by her Nani in her favour. It was also submitted that assuming that there was agreement in favour of Smt. Nirmal, Smt. Nirmal has no right to restrain Lakhpat Singh from dealing with the property which he has bona fide and for consideration purchased. It is only an agreement to sell. Till sale deed is ordered to be executed in favour of Smt. Nirmal by Kalawati and transferee(s) from her, she cannot become clothed with the ownership of this property and no right passes on to her. 6, It was submitted by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....easuring 5 kanal 4 marla minus 1 kanal 10-1/2 mjarla (it may be mentioned here that 1 kanal 10-1/2 marla has been sold by Kalawati with the consent of Smt. Nirmal to her nominees). 9. Smt. Nirmal had a prima facie case in her favour. Balance of convenience was also in her favour. "Principle of irreparable injury" was also in her favour. There was an agreement to sell in her favour dated 13.12.1995 alleged to have been executed by Kalawati. It was stipulated in that agreement that Kalawati would execute sale deed in favour of Smt. Nirmal on or before 30.3.1997. Kalawati sold land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla to Lakhpat Singh vide sale deed dated 13/14.3.1997, which prima facie was in breach of that agreement. Sale in favour of Lakhpat Singh would remain unaffected if Lakhpat Singh is able to prove that he was bona fide purchaser for consideration and he was not aware that the land purchased by him was subject matter of agreement to sell dated 13.12.1995 in favour of Smt. Nirmal. It is question of evidence whether he purchased this land measuring 7 kanal 2 marla bona fide for consideration on 13.3.1997 and he was not aware of the agreement dated 13.12.1995. It is also question of evi....