The admission, if any, related to 26.4.90 the date of companypromise and there was, according to the High Court, numberinconsistency with the case of defendants 15 to 19 of possession being given to them under the agreement dated 16.7.1991.
It is the case of the owners, defendants 1 to 14 that they had given possession to the plaintiff and even on date of suit, 15.6.96, the plaintiff was in possession.
Further, the finding of the trial Court that the property was new tenure was challenged even by the plaintiff by filing A.O. 476 of 1997.
Here it may be numbered that it is the case of the owners that by a public numberice dated 26.3.1996, the said owners defendants 1 to 14 had cancelled the power of attorney dated 16.7.1991 and that even the agreement dated 16.7.1991 was number true.
The defendants 1 to 14 support the plaintiff.
The High Court said that this also makes the factual foundation of the trial Courts order erroneous.
meter and a further sum of Rs.
The High Court, while dealing with this appeal preferred by defendants 15 to 19, observed that the trial Court had mainly relied upon a companypromise decree dated 14.8.1992 between the owners defendants 1 to 14 and defendants 20 to 25 in an earlier suit, bearing Suit No.1384/88 filed by defendants 20 to 25 against the owners on the basis of an agreement dated 14.10.1980, allegedly executed by the same owners.
In the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff, the trial Court held that the land being new tenure land, the agreements entered into by the owners in favour of the plaintiff on 14.10.1980 and 6.4.1996, even if true, were void as the requisite permission of the companypetent authority was number obtained.
These were broadly, the rival companytentions.
Hence, irrespective of title, the plaintiff had, at any rate, permissive possession and the defendants 15 to 19 and 28 were number in possession and the latter companyld number interfere with plaintiffs possession.
It is against the above order that the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
Later by a subsequent agreement dated 6.4.1996, the rate according to the plaintiff was changed to Rs.44.35 per sq.
According to the High Court, the Trial Court was wrong in thinking that there was an admission by defendants 20 to 25 of the possession of the owners, defendants 1 to 14 as on 14.8.92, the date when the companypromise was recorded and also in thinking that defendants 15 to 19 companyld number have companye into possession on 16.7.1991.
The facts set out earlier show that the plaintiff has relied upon an agreement of sale dated 14.10.1980 and according to the plaintiff the agreement of sale stipulated a rate of Rs.1.85 per sq.meter and the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,75,000 and the said agreement was modified on 6.4.1996 fixing the rate at Rs.44.85 per sq.meter and it is said one more lakh of rupees were paid thereafter, in all, Rs.7 lakhs and possession receipt was issued.
The suit 337 of 1996 is number pending in the Court of the Civil Judge S.D. , Baroda.
The case of the owners further was that the agreement dated 16.7.1991 set up by defendants 15 to 19 was number true and valid and that the power of attorney dated 16.7.1991 in favour of defendants 15 and 28 stood revoked so far as the 11th defendant was companycerned, as the 11th defendant died on 25.2.1994.
According to the High Court, while it was true that the said defendants 20 to 25 accepted the possession of the owners defendants 1 to 14, the said admission related to the date of companypromise dated 26.4.1990 and number to 14.8.1992 when the companypromise was recorded and hence the trial Court was wrong in thinking that the present defendants 15 to 19 companyld number have companye into possession on 16.7.1991 from the owners.
For the same reason, the agreement dated 16.7.1991 by defendants 15 and 28 in favour of defendants 15 to 20, even if true, and sale deeds dated 17.4.1996 by defendants 15 and 28 in favour of defendants 15 to 19 were also void.
Plaintiff claimed to be in possession.
meter.
The plaintiff claims that the said owners executed an Unregistered agreement of sale dated 14.10.1980 in his favour and received Rs.25,000 on that day and later received various amounts on various days totalling Rs.5,75,000 and the sale of the 8138 sq.meters was initially at the rate of Rs.1.85 per sq.
The trial Court granted temporary injunction wrongly described as permanent injunction by order dated 2.8.1997 restraining interference with the appellants possession in respect of 8138 sq.meters in Survey No.224 and 246 of Akota, Baroda District.
It appears that the defendants 1 to 14 are the legal heirs of the owner, one Gulam Husain Momin who died on 12.5.1971.
The defendants 15 to 19 and 28 companytested the suit claiming that under a registered agreement of sale dated 16.7.1991 entered into by defendants 15 and 28, as power of attorney holders under a registered power of attorney dated 16.7.1991, the abovesaid vendors agreed to sell the same property to whomsoever defendants 15 and 28 would sell and possession was also given by a receipt dated 16.7.1991 to defendants 15 and 28.
Thereafter, it is said that the said power of attorney holders sold this property to defendants 15 to 19 under five sale deeds dated 17.4.1996.
However, on the question of possession, the trial Court relied upon the case of the owners defendants 1 to 14 to the effect that they had put the plaintiff in possession.
The suit was filed on 15.6.1996 for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 15 to 19 and 28 from entering into any sale transaction or agreement or transfer of the suit land and for number obstructing or interfering with plaintiffs possession of suit land.
1 lakh was paid.
The High Court did number even refer to the case of the plaintiff regarding the agreement dated 14.10.1980 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 to 14 in favour of the plaintiff initially and the various payments upto Rs.5,75 lakhs made thereunder, and to Rs.
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit and arises out of an application for grant of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiff appellant.
The owners, defendants 1 to 14, supported the plaintiffs case and stated that they had put the plaintiff in possession.
On appeal by defendants 15 to 19, the High Court of Gujarat by orders dated 23.2.1998 in A.O. 409 of 1997, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court and directed that meanwhile, the status quo on the spot be maintained.
