However, the Letters Patent Bench allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the plaintiff respondents.
The appellants herein were the defendants in the suit brought by the plaintiff respondents for recovery of the suit property and for mesne profit.
Appellant number 1 paid a sum of Rs.
The appellants filed a written statement wherein the suit claim was resisted on the ground that they are in possession of the property in pursuance of agreement entered into on 9th July, 1964 and their possession is protected as they are always and still willing and ready to perform their part of the companytract.
After the sale deed was executed, the plaintiff respondent number 1 on the strength of the said sale deed brought a suit for recovery of possession of the land.
The view taken by the Letters Patent Bench was that the protection as regards possession is number available to the defendant appellants as the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale is barred by limitation.
It is the case of the appellants that despite the said injunction order, the transferor sold the said property through a registered sale deed dated 24th May, 1966 in favour of respondent number 1.
Another companytention raised was that the decree passed by the civil companyrt in a suit for injunction operates as res judicata and the sale deed which is the basis of the title of the appellant has number been proved.
The appellants in pursuance of the said agreement for sale was put in possession over the said property.
It is against the said judgment of the Letters Patent Bench, the appellants are in appeal before us.
Under such circumstances, the appellant brought a suit on 2nd August, 1965 for injunction restraining the transferor from selling the said land in favour of respondent number 1.
On 30th April, 1966 the trial companyrt granted injunction as prayed for.
9,000/ .
On 9th July, 1964,Respondent number 3 executed an agreement for sale of an agricultural land in favour of appellant number 1 for a total companysideration of Rs.
After the execution of the said agreement, it came to the numberice of the appellant that the transferor is negotiating for sale of the said land in favour of respondent number 1.
2706/1991.
5,700/ towards earnest money.
1349/1991, 1350/1991 3304/1993 J U D G E M E N T N.KHARE, J. In this group of appeals the question that arises for our companysideration is whether in a suit brought by a transferor for recovery of possession of the suit property, a defendant transferee can defend or protect his possession over the suit property obtained in pursuance of a part performance on an agreement to sell under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act hereinafter referred to as the Act , even if a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell has barred by limitation.
with C.A. Nos.
