Judgment :- A.P. Shah, C.J. 1. Admit. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 waives service. By consent, the Appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. This O.S.A. is directed against the order dated 1. 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No.4032 of 2006 in A. No.2222 of 2006 in C.S. No.508 of 2006 revoking the leave granted under Clause 12 of Letters Patent. 3. The Suit has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff for the following reliefs: .(a) Directing the defendants 1 to 5 specifically perform their part of the obligations of the agreement for sale dated 3. 2004 as merged in supplemental agreement dated 22. 2005 by executing and registering sale deed or deeds in respect of the suit property and register the name on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.5.35 lakhs on a date to be fixed by this Honble Court and in default direct the Court to execute and register the deed or deeds of sale in respect of the Plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff at the expense of the plaintiff on deposit of the balance sale consideration payable by him to the credit of the Suit or in the alternative direct the refund of the advance amount of Rs.5,35,000/-paid by the plaintiff with interest at 24% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization; .(b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 or their men, agents, servants or any person or claim through them or authorized by them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, more fully described in the schedule hereunder; .(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 or any other person or persons claiming through them from alienating or encumbering dealing with the suit schedule mentioned property either by way of sale, mortgage, joint development lease or in any other manner detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff except in accordance with law. 4. If we look at the prayer "a" and "c" alone, it is clear that principally the Suit is for specific performance of the agreement and even the ancillary relief of permanent injunction is also for restraining defendants from alienating or dealing with the suit property in any way. 4. If we look at the prayer "a" and "c" alone, it is clear that principally the Suit is for specific performance of the agreement and even the ancillary relief of permanent injunction is also for restraining defendants from alienating or dealing with the suit property in any way. Prayers "a" and "c" are not for title or possession and the injunction relief sought for also does not affect the title or possession. 5. The learned Single Judge has, however, held that the prayer for `b permanent injunction would amount to control of the suit property and therefore the Suit must be regarded as a Suit for land and since the property is situated outside Chennai, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the Suit. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant wants to give up the prayer for permanent injunction in terms of prayer “b”. We do not see any reason why such a prayer should not be granted and accordingly plaintiff is permitted to delete prayer "b". Consequently, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent’s states that the property has already been transferred on 30.6.2006 to one S.B. Geetha by a registered sale deed. In view of the transfer, the prayer for continuance of interim relief of injunction cannot be granted and the same is rejected. 8. O.S.A. stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.