Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar & Anr. (SC)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882–Sec. 53-A–Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –Order 7, Rule 11(a)–Suit for permanent injunction by the proposed purchaser through the agreement against the appellant-third party–Maintainability–Claim of respondents suffers from the following fatal defects-
(1) There is no privity between the respondents and the appellant as the agreement to sell is not between the parties to the suit.
(2) Respondents would have no locus as they have not divested any right by virtue of the agreement.
(3) The vendors are not arrayed as parties to even support any semblance of right sought by the respondent-plaintiffs.
(4) Plaintiff’s remedy lies only against their proposed vendors to institute a suit for specific performance.
(5) Respondents are not in possession of the property, whereas the appellant’s possession since 1905 is admitted in the plaint itself–Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prohibits the grant of an injunction when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.
(6) Without possession and without seeking a declaration of title, not only is the suit is barred, but the cause of action is also fictitious.
The plaint ought to have been rejected under the provisions of Order 11, Rules 11(a) &(d).