K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed against the order passed by the XVII Additional City civil Judge Bangalore on issue No. 7 in O. S. No. 3390/97. The appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant /respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The defendant is the owner of a peace of land. The plaintiff a builder and developer entered into an agreement with the defendant for construction of a complex at his cost and after completion of the construction, it was agreed that the 50% of the built up area has to be taken over by the builder as his own property and to deal with the same in the manner he wishes. The balance of 50% of the constructed property had to be delivered to the owner, Under the agreement certain stipulations are also made regarding the reimbursement, the cost of construction, if construction area exceeds and the area contemplated under the agreement. The agreement also provides for a deposit of rs. 15,00,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of the contract which is to be refundable and security deposit paid to the K. E. B. , B. W. S. S. B. , proportionate liability of the owner has to be payable. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has refused to settle the accounts and he is due in a sum of rs. 1,15,00,000/ -. When the plaintiff refused to permit the defendant to enter upon the area, she had indulged in unlawful activities by sending Goonda elements to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff. Accordingly sought for an injunction. It is also said that the power of attorney is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for facilitating the execution of the terms of the agreement. ( 2 ) THE defendant who had entered appearance has stoutly denied the case of the plaintiff and also taken up a contention that the suit is not maintainable, since the salient averments in the plaint indicate that the relief sought for is one for recovery of money. ( 2 ) THE defendant who had entered appearance has stoutly denied the case of the plaintiff and also taken up a contention that the suit is not maintainable, since the salient averments in the plaint indicate that the relief sought for is one for recovery of money. By virtue of the provisions of S. 41 of the specific Relief Act and in view of the availability for effective alternate remedy of recovery of money, a suit for injunction would not maintainable. The trial Court has formulated issue No. 7 in the following manner:"whether she (defendant) further proves that the present suit is actually a claim for money and hence not maintainable?" ( 3 ) IT appears that at the stage of evidence, the defendant filed a memo requesting the court to take up issue No. 7 as a preliminary issue. The impugned order of the trial court also indicates that the counsel for the appellant contended that issue No. 7 is not pure question of law and it is a mixed question of fact and law. As such evidence is required for adjudicating the said issue. However, arguments have been canvassed on the proposition of law with reference to the document and pleadings. ( 4 ) THE trial Court has found that the grievance of the plaintiff is essentially for recovery of money by virtue of the provisions contained in S. 41 and held that the plaintiff has a efficacious alternate remedy, as such not entitled to a relief of injunction by virtue of the provisions under S. (h) of 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the respondent while supporting the order of the trial Court strenuously contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable since admittedly the relationship between the parties is one that of an agent and principal and relied on the Ruling of the Supreme Court in Mahabir prasad Jain v. Ganga Singh (1999) 8 Supreme court cases 274 ( AIR 1999 SC 3873 ) in para 12 of the judgment a proposition of law is laid down that the possession of a servant agent is that of his master or principal as the case may be for all purposes and the former cannot maintain a suit against the latter on the basis of such possession. Placing reliance on the said decisions, it was stoutly contended that the suit is not maintainable. However, after going through the facts in the cited case, I find that the ratio has no application to the facts of the case on hand. It was the case where the plaintiff in the suit was inducted into possession as a servant/agent and he was dispossessed. Perhaps unlawfully, a suit was filed by the dispossessed plaintiff to recover possession under S. 6 of the Specific Relief act on the strength of possessory title. In the context of such a claim, it was held that a suit by a servant or agent against the principal or master for recovery of possession under S. 6 does not lie. Here it is not a case for recovery of possession on the strength of 6 of the Specific Relief Act. ( 6 ) COMING to the crucial fact on hand, it is necessary to advert to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. By virtue of the terms in the agreement at para 1 (i) unequivocally indicates that the suit land was delivered to the possession of the plaintiff for the purpose of carrying out the construction activity. It is also stipulated that after the completion of the construction activity 50% of the built up area has to be handed over to the defendant owner. The close reading of the said provision does suggest that the plaintiff was put into exclusive possession of the property. There appears to be some dispute between the parties regarding the amount to be payable. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the appellant further relied on the provisions of S. 221 of the Indian contract Act which reads thus : 221. Agent's lien on principal's property. In the absence of any contract to the contrary, an agent is entitled to retain goods papers and other property, whether movable or immovable, of the principal received by him, until the amount due to himself for commission, disbursements and services in respect of the same has been paid or accounted for to him. Agent's lien on principal's property. In the absence of any contract to the contrary, an agent is entitled to retain goods papers and other property, whether movable or immovable, of the principal received by him, until the amount due to himself for commission, disbursements and services in respect of the same has been paid or accounted for to him. " ( 8 ) FURTHER relied on the ruling reported in AIR 1957 Madhya Bharath 20 (1956 Cri l J 69) in Gopaldas v. Thakurdas, in para 20, 21 and 22 it is held thus : (20) This agent's lien does not give unrestricted authority to the agent to deal with the property in any manner the agent may like. The right which the lien confers upon the agent is limited in nature : it enables the agent to retain the property till his dues are paid by the principal. This right can be availed of as a defence if the principal brings an action for recovery of the property in the possession of the agent, or, it may afford him a ground to reclaim the property if the agent has been unlawfully dispossessed of it. But this confers no authority on the agent to sell or otherwise dispose of the property without consent of the owner (principal) in order to satisfy his lien. See Bala Mal v. Budhumal, AIR 1928 Lah 94 (B ). In mulchand Shib Dhan v. Sheomal Sheo prasad, AIR 1929 Lah 666 (C), Shadilal C. J. has observed that "where plaintiffs purchase certain goods on behalf of the defendants from whom certain money was due to them, they are entitled to retain possession as agents of the goods until the money is paid, but, without, being directed by the defendants to sell them and in the absence of a mercantile custom authorising them to do so, they are not entitled to sell the goods. If they sell them, however, they are liable for the loss sustained by the defendants on account of such unauthorised sale. (21) To this position of the agent's lien, may be added another stride which the law took and which appears to have extended to the limits of the agent's lien. If they sell them, however, they are liable for the loss sustained by the defendants on account of such unauthorised sale. (21) To this position of the agent's lien, may be added another stride which the law took and which appears to have extended to the limits of the agent's lien. It is said that although "an agent pure and simple may not be justified in selling the principal's goods on behalf of the principal, the agent is in the position of a tacit pledgee and can recover as much of his outlay as possible by selling the goods which are in his custody". See Bar Dukan v. Gopal Singh, air 1928 Lah 747 (D) ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondent contended that by virtue of the provisions contained in 14 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is not maintainable. Provisions of sub sec. (1) of s. 14 of the Specific Relief Act which is extracted hereunder : 14. Contracts not specifically enforceable. (1) The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely. (A) a contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief; (B) a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; (C) a contract which is in its nature determinable; (d) a contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff as an agent was inducted into exclusive possession by terms of agreement and terms of agreement also provide for the accounting of liabilities on the part of the defendant before effectively completing the construction and execution of the terms of the agreement. It appears that disputes have arisen with regard to the liability between the parties. May be, that plaintiff could in law file a suit for recovery of the amounts due by the defendant. But nonetheless, it cannot be said that in view of such right, he has no right to file a suit for injunction, if it is otherwise maintainable in law. The trial Court has grossly erred in appreciating the provisions of Cl. (h) of S. 41 of the Specific Relief Act. But nonetheless, it cannot be said that in view of such right, he has no right to file a suit for injunction, if it is otherwise maintainable in law. The trial Court has grossly erred in appreciating the provisions of Cl. (h) of S. 41 of the Specific Relief Act. May be in the averments of the plaint the outstanding liabilities of the defendant may have been set out in detail. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs claim for relief of injunction is based upon the terms of the agreement and the factum of exclusive possession coupled with the right under S. 221 of the Contract Act. Admittedly the plaintiff is an agent of the defendant validly with authority of agency coupled with interest. In that view of the matter the relief of injunction on the strength of possession and under the terms of contract is a distinct cause of action giving rise to distinct right. So also any monetary liability under the terms of agreement is a distinct right giving rise to a distinct relief. The plaintiff in the present suit confines the claim only for protection of his possessory rights of the property by virtue of the terms of agreement. The same being a distinct relief not relatable to the monetary liabilities under the agreement, hence suit for injunction cannot he held to be hit by the provisions of (h) of S. 41 and S. 14 of the Specific relief Act. In that view of the matter the order of dismissal is set aside. The suit is remanded to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. Orders accordingly. --- *** --- .