1. ' This suit has been filed for specific performance. The case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of Plot No,260-A, Beach Street No,3, Phase VIII, Defence Authority from defendant No,1 on 24-9-1986 and the entire amount of consideration of Rs,2,95,000 had been paid by the plaintiff to defendant No,1. According to the plaint, later on it transpired that Plot No,260-A already stood allotted to some other officers and as such the allotment of Plot No,260-A, in favour of defendant No,1 was improper. It is further averred that instead of Plot No,260-A, defendant No,1 was allotted Plot No,290, also measuring 1,000 sq. Yds. But that plot also could not be allotted to defendant No,1 and finally defendant No,1, member of Defence Authority, who was entitled to the allotment of one residential plot, was allotted Plot No,65 Beach Avenue, Phase VIII, also measuring 1,000 sq. Yds. According to the plaintiff, defendant No,1. Has assured the plaintiff orally that as soon as a new plot is allotted to him, the same will be transferred to the plaintiff on the basis of the agreement dated 24-9-1986 for the same consideration i,e. Rs,2,95,000 but, after allotment of Plot No,65 on Beach Avenue Phase VIII, defendant No,1 entered into an agreement in April, 1987 for the sale of Plot No, 65 to defendant No,2 for a consideration of Rs,4,15,000. The case of defendant No,2 is that he is a bona fide purchaser and he was not aware of any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 and in any case the agreement dated 24-9-1986 between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 is in respect of Plot No,260-A on Beach Street No,3 Phases VIII, whereas defendant No,2 had purchased Plot No, 65 on Beach Avenue from defendant No,1. The case of defendant No,1 is that he has not received any amount of consideration from the plaintiff and in fact defendant No,1 had not entered into any agreement with the plaintiff and the agreement of sale with blanks has been given to the estate Broker, who might have got the blanks filled up without notice or permission from defendant No,1 ' The present application, CMA No,2564/87, has been filed for temporary injunction by the plaintiff for restraining defendant No,1 from transferring the newly-allotted plot to defendant No,2 by defendant No,3. On being pointed out that prima facie the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 is in respect of Plot No,260-A on Beach Street No,3, whereas the agreement between defendant No,1 and defendant No,2 is in respect of Plot No,65, on Beach Avenue Phase VIII, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that oral assurance had been given by defendant No,1 that he will transfer whatever new plot was transferred to him and reliance was also placed on section 18 of the Specific Relief Act and section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.
2. In my view, prima facie, neither section 18 of the Specific Relief Act nor section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is attracted in the present case, inasmuch as the plots in the suit are two different plots, namely, 260-A, on Beach Street No,3 and Plot No,65 on Beach Avenue. Then only reference is made to oral arrangement and assurance between the plaintiff and defendant A No,1 and in the meantime there is an agreement between defendant No,1 and defendant No,2. It has also been noticed that the defence of defendant No,1 is that he had not entered into any agreement even in respect of Plot No,260-A with the plaintiff and only an agreement with blanks had been given to an Estate Broker. In the circumstances I am of the view that no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff in respect of Plot No,65.
3. ' CMA No, 2564/87 is accordingly dismissed and as a result the status quo on 24-5-1987 and continued on 23-8-1987 is hereby recalled.
4. Interim injunction recalled.