LAW FOR ALL

the oral sale was not proved and also found that no title passes under the oral sale without there being a registration =It was sought to be contended that when the long possession of the plaintiff is admitted, the Court should have granted an injunction against the defendants. But, however, it is to be noted that the grant of injunction is an equitable relief and the conduct of the plaintiff in seeking such a relief should be fair. When the plaintiff is not admitting her possession as a tenant, setting up a plea of purchase under oral sale and also being in possession without filing a suit for specific performance of the agreement, the plaintiff cannot rely upon the relief of injunction when the contractual term stipulates the registration of the document. = So far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, it postulates an intention on the part of the enjoyer to treat the property in his possession belonging to some other as his own property. It is well settled that there cannot be any adverse possession for a person against his own property. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the sale has taken place in 1990 and she has become the owner of the property and consequently, her animus is as an owner of the property in her own name and not in enjoyment of the property belonging to some other person as an owner. Therefore, even the plea under Section 53 of the Specific Relief Act is not open since there is no agreement in writing to sell the property. Consequently, there are no merits in the appeal and there are no grounds to admit.