JUDGMENT : (Krishna Rao, J.) : 1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A. No. 2 of 2023 in C.S. No. 162 of 2022 praying for an order of injunction. The Principal Director of the plaintiff company, namely, Dr. Saumabha Dasgupta and the defendant no.1 being the close friends decided to set up a diagnostic center in the suit property belonging to the defendant no.1 and accordingly on 1st March, 2007, the defendant no.1 had entered into a Tenancy Agreement with the plaintiff with respect to the suit property upon payment of monthly rent. 2. The defendant no.1 obtained a Cash Credit Loan of Rs.44,00,000/-from the State Bank of India, Bhupen Bose Avenue Branch by keeping the suit property as collateral security to the bank and when the defendant no.1 was not in a position to repay the loan, the defendant no. 1 was in search of a purchaser who can purchase the property and out of the said consideration money, the defendant no.1 can liquidate the loan amount. 3. When the plaintiff came to know about the same, the plaintiff approached the defendant no.1 to purchase the suit property for a total consideration amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-subject to the terms and conditions that a sum of Rs.44,00,000/-will be paid by the plaintiff to liquidate the dues of the defendant no.1 directly to the defendant no.2 to liquidate the loan amount. 4. An Agreement for Sale was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, on 26th April, 2008 and the plaintiff has paid an advance amount of Rs.22,00,000/-to the defendant no.1. As per the agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1, the defendant no.1 agreed to execute the Conveyance Deed in favour of the plaintiff within 90 days from the date of the execution of the agreement. The defendant no.1 failed to execute the deed, a Supplementary Agreement for Sale dated 30th July, 2008, was entered between the parties by extending the time for completion of Deed of Conveyance by one month keeping the other terms and conditions as it is. 5. The defendant no.1 failed to execute the deed, a Supplementary Agreement for Sale dated 30th July, 2008, was entered between the parties by extending the time for completion of Deed of Conveyance by one month keeping the other terms and conditions as it is. 5. On 30th August, 2008, the defendant no.1 had approached the plaintiff requesting for some more time to complete the Deed of Conveyance and as per the request of the defendant no.1, a second Supplementary Agreement for Sale was executed on 30th August, 2008 by extending further one month time i.e. upto 30th September, 2008 for execution of Conveyance Deed. At the time of execution of second Supplementary Agreement for Sale, the defendant no.1 has handed over the possession of the suit property by executing a possession letter. 6. The defendant no.1 has also provided no objection to the plaintiff for transfer of consumer name from the defendant no.1 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff by depositing an amount of Rs.44,00,000/-with the defendant no.2 closed the Cash Credit Loan of the defendant no.1 and requested the defendant no.1 to execute Deed of Conveyance in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant no.1 had raised a further loan by keeping the suit property as collateral security. 7. Even after the Cash Credit Loan was liquidated by the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 had obtained another loan by keeping the suit property as collateral security and failed to execute Deed of Conveyance, the plaintiff had filed a suit before the Learned City Civil Court being T.S. No. 223 of 2012 for declaration and permanent injunction against the 9th defendants and also obtained an ex-parte ad-interim order on February, 2012. Subsequently, the suit was amended as a Suit for Specific Performance of Contract. In the said suit, the defendant no.1 has filed an application under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the plaintiff had filed another application under Order VII, Rule 10A(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for taking back the plaint. After taking the suit back, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for Specific Performance of Contract, declaration and permanent injunction. 8. Mr. After taking the suit back, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for Specific Performance of Contract, declaration and permanent injunction. 8. Mr. Ghosal, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submitted that the defendant no.1 deliberately neglected to execute Conveyance Deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property inspite of the fact that the plaintiff has paid to a total sale consideration and also in occupation of the suit property. He submits that by not executing a Conveyance Deed, the defendant no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement for Sale dated 26th April, 2008. 9. Mr. Ghosal submitted that enforcement of negative covenants present in the Agreement for Sale dated 26th April, 2008, become clear as to the intention of the parties. 10. Mr. Ghosal submitted that the plaintiff has liquidated the Cash Credit Loan of the defendant no.1 by depositing an amount of Rs.44,00,000/-in the bank but without the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant has again mortgaged the said property in the bank. 11. Mr. Ghosal submitted that the plaintiff is having prima facie case and Balance of Convenience are in favour of the plaintiff and if an interim relief is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 12. Mr. Ghosal submitted that a party enforcing a negative covenant remains at a higher pedestal and only prima facie case is required to be made out. 13. Mr. Anindya Basu, Learned Advocate representing the defendant no.1 submitted that the defendant no.1 is the owner of the property and the plaintiff is in possession as a tenant. 14. Mr. Basu submits that Dr. Saumabha Dasgupta who is the Principal Director of the plaintiff company and the defendant no. 1 being close friends decided to set up a diagnostic center by utilizing the property of the defendant no. 1 and accordingly in the month of February, 2007, Dr. Saumabha Dasgupta promoted the plaintiff company. He submits 1st that a Tenancy Agreement was entered between the parties on March, 2007 for a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-and subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-per month. He submits that in the month of April, 2007, the wife of the defendant no. Saumabha Dasgupta promoted the plaintiff company. He submits 1st that a Tenancy Agreement was entered between the parties on March, 2007 for a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/-and subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-per month. He submits that in the month of April, 2007, the wife of the defendant no. 1 joined as a Director and also mortgaged the suit property against a Cash Credit Account and a term loans of the plaintiff company with the State Bank of India, Jadavpur Branch on 16th April, 2007. He submits that due to some financial differences, the wife of the defendant no. 1 has resigned and decided that the suit property would be convened in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly on 26th April, 2008, an Agreement for Sale was entered between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff company for a total sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. 15. Mr. Basu submits that though the plaintiff has paid the total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/-, the plaintiff failed to pay the rent since October, 2009 and also refused to close its loans with the State Bank of India, Jadavpur Branch due to which the bank initiated a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the year 2011 and a sale notice was issued. He submits that to save the property from the sale by the bank, the defendant no. 1 closed the plaintiff’s loan and the bank has returned the Original Deed to the defendant no. 1, thus the defendant no. 1 has a right to redemption as per Section 95 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 16. Mr. Basu submits that for obtaining an order of injunction one should prove a prima facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience but in the present case, neither the plaintiff is having a prima facie case nor balance of convenience and inconvenience. He submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and as such Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will apply and there is no question of dispossession or suffering loss and injury by the plaintiff. 17. Mr. He submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and as such Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, will apply and there is no question of dispossession or suffering loss and injury by the plaintiff. 17. Mr. Basu submits that under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the transferee must have performed its part or must be ready and willing to do so but in the present case, the plaintiff refused to perform its part beyond the payment of consideration and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for Specific Performance of Contract. 18. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the plaint, documents and judgments relied by the parties. 19. There is no dispute with regard to the Agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 on 26th April, 2008, for sale of the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/-and with regard to possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 20. At the time of execution of Agreement for Sale dated 26th April, 2008, the plaintiff had paid Rs.22,00,000/-as advance sale consideration out of total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The plaintiff has further paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-in total Rs.27,00,000/-. The defendant had agreed that he will execute Deed of Conveyance within 90 days from the date of execution of Agreement for Sale. The defendant has not executed a Sale Deed within 90 days and accordingly, the defendant has entered into a Supplementary Agreement for Sale on 30th July, 2008, by extending the time for execution of Deed of Conveyance for a further period of one month from the date of execution of Supplementary Agreement for Sale and all the other conditions of the Agreement dated 26th April, 2008, remain unchanged. 21. The plaintiff has paid Rs.27,00,000/-out of Rs.1,10,00,000/-but the defendant no. 1 has not come forward for execution of Sale Deed, accordingly, a Supplementary Agreement for Sale was entered wherein the defendant no. 1 has agreed that he will execute the Sale Deed within one month from the above execution of the Supplementary Deed. The plaintiff has paid the total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/-to the defendant no. 1 in the following manner : Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1) By ch. No. 992038, dated 13.03.2008 on HDFC Bank Ltd., Golpark Branch, Kolkata. Rs. 8,00,000/- 2) By ch. The plaintiff has paid the total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/-to the defendant no. 1 in the following manner : Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1) By ch. No. 992038, dated 13.03.2008 on HDFC Bank Ltd., Golpark Branch, Kolkata. Rs. 8,00,000/- 2) By ch. No. 992039, dated 13.03.2008 on HDFC Bank Ltd., Golpark Branch, Kolkata. Rs. 9,00,000/- 3) By cash Rs. 5,00,000/- 4) By cash Rs. 5,00,000/- 5) By draft no.331754, dated 29.08.2008 on ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Middleton Street, Kolkata. Rs. 11,00,000/- 6) By draft no.331757, dated 29.08.2008 on ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Middleton Street, Kolkata. Rs. 28,00,000/- 7) By draft no.331758, dated 29.08.2008 on ING Vysya Bank Ltd. Middleton Street, Kolkata. Rs. 44,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs) WITNESSES: Signature of the Vendor 22. Even after receipt of total sale consideration and even after completion of the one month period in terms of the Supplementary Agreement dated 30th July, 2008, the defendant no. 1 has not come forward for execution of Sale Deed, on the request of the defendant no. 1, second Supplementary Agreement for Sale entered between the parties and in the said Agreement, the defendant no. 1 had accepted that the defendant no. 1 has received the total sale consideration and in the Agreement, the defendant no. 1 has stated that he will complete the sale by 30th September, 2008. By a letter dated 25th September, 2008, the defendant no. 1 has further requested for extension of time to execute the Sale Deed. The plaintiff further came to know that the defendant no. 1 has raised further loan by keeping the suit property as collateral despite of closure of the earlier Cash Credit Account and accordingly the plaintiff had filed a suit before the Learned City Civil Court against the defendant no.1 and had obtained an order of injunction which subsequently the plaintiff has withdrawn and file the present suit. 23. As per the case of the defendant no. 1, the suit property was mortgaged against a Cash Credit Account and a term loan of the plaintiff company with the State Bank of India, Jadavpur Branch on 16th April, 2007 but has not taken any steps to close the said loan with the State Bank of India, Jadavpur Branch. Accordingly, the bank had initiated a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the defendant no. Accordingly, the bank had initiated a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the defendant no. 1 in the year 2011 and a sale notice was issued. As per the case of the defendant no.1 to sell the property from the bank, the defendant no. 1 closed the plaintiff’s loan but the plaintiff has not performed his duty to pay the said amount to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 claimed that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant no. 1 but the plaintiff fails to pay the monthly rent to the defendant no. 1. 24. Mr. Ghosal relied upon the judgment in the case of Dalpat Kumar and Another –vs-Prahlad Singh and Others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 and submitted that temporary injunction may be granted where, in any suit, it is proved by the affidavit or otherwise, that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing or the dispossession of the plaintiff or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to the property in dispute in the suit as the court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or further orders. 25. Mr. Ghosal relied upon the judgment in the case of Richard Wheeler Doherty vs. James Clagston Allman and W.C. Dowden [L.R.] 3 App. Cases 709 by the Lord Chancellor and submitted that according to well-settled practice, a Court of Equity would have had no discretion to exercise. If the parties, for valuable consideration, with their eyes open, contract that a particular thing shall not be done, all that a Court of Equity has to do is to say, by way of injunction, that which the parties have already said by way of covenant, that the thing shall not be done; and in such case the injunction does nothing more than give the sanction of the process of the Court to that which already is the contract between the parties. He submits that it is not then a question of the balance of convenience or inconvenience, or of the amount of damage or injury -it is the specific performance, by the Court, of that negative bargain which the parties have made, with their eyes open between themselves. 26. Mr. Basu relied upon the judgments in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryanvanshi and Another -vs-Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 676 and in the case of Rambhau Namdeo Gajre vs. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra (dead) Through Lrs. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 614 and submitted that protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitled the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance of such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. 27. Mr. Basu relied upon the judgment in the case of Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan Nair -vs-Padmanabha Pillai and Others reported in (2004) 12 SCC 754 and submitted that a person paying off a debt to secure the property either with the consent of others or on his own volition becomes, in law, the owner entitled to hold and possess the property. But in equity the right is to hold the property till he is reimbursed. Such right in equity either in favour of the person who discharges the debt or the person, whose debt has been discharged, does not result in resumption of relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee. 28. This Court finds that as per the Agreement dated 26th April, 2008, the plaintiff has paid the total sale consideration and the defendant no.1 was also handed over the possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has enclosed all the documents in the application but the defence which the defendant no.1 has taken with regard to the loan taken by the plaintiff from the State Bank of India, Jadavpur Branch and the plaintiff has not returned the said loan amount, the defendant no.1 has not enclosed any document to say that the plaintiff has obtained loan and has not paid the same. In the contrary by way of two supplementary agreements, the defendants had sought for extension of time to execute the Sale Deed. 29. The ratio of judgments relied by the plaintiff in the case of Dalpat Kumar (supra) and Richard Wheeler Doherty (supra) are equally applied in the present case as the plaintiff has performed his part by paying the total sale consideration and also by liquidating the loan amount of the defendant no.1 with the State Bank of India, Bhupen Bose Avenue Branch and the plaintiff is also in possession of the property. The ratio of the cases relied by the defendant no.1 are not applicable in the present facts and circumstance of the case as the defendant no.1 inspite of the fact that the plaintiff had liquidated the Cash Credit Loan of the defendant no.1 but again the defendant no.1 had taken Cash Credit Loan by mortgaging the suit property. 30. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court prima facie finds that the plaintiff has paid the total sale consideration to the defendant no.1, the plaintiff is in occupation of the premises and is running the business in the suit premises. Only to avoid for registration of Sale Deed after receipt of the total sale consideration, the defendant no. 1 has made out a case for mortgaging the property of the defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff does not stand as no document filed by the defendant no. 1 to prove the contention, accordingly, this Court finds that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience in his favour and if an order of injunction is not passed, there will be a chance that the defendant will alienate the property to the third party and the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury, accordingly, the defendants, its men, agent, employee and servants are restrained from alienating/ transferring or creating any third party interest over the suit property and for disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Any observation made in this order is prima facie view only for the purpose of adjudication of the present application. 31. G.A. No. 2 of 2023 is this disposed of.