Through this revision petition, the orders dated 21.07.2011 and 07.01.2012 passed by both the learned Courts below have been assailed, whereby the application and appeal for grant of interim injunction was dismissed.'
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 23.01.2011, which is in possession of the petitioner. The claim of Respondent No, 2 is that the land in dispute had already been transferred to him by Respondent No, 1 by executing a gift deed, therefore, Respondent No, 2 is an absolute owner of the land and has every right to alienate the same. Thus, both the Courts below have rightly refused to grant the injunction order to the petitioner.
3. I have considered the arguments, of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
4. It is noticed that Respondent No, 1/Defendant No, 1 original owner of the property while appearing before the learned trial Court made the statement on 07.10.2011, wherein she expressed her intention for grant of decree in favour of the petitioner in a suit for specific performance subject to payment of the agreed amount and possession of the petitioner has also not been denied by any of the respondents.
5. Without dilating further on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate that during the pendency of the suit, the parties should maintain the status-quo with regard to the possession and alienation of land.
6. With the above observation, this petition stands accepted.