Key Points:- The court holds that the rectification deed, being registered, provides notice to the builder under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, affecting bona fide purchaser arguments. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court finds prima facie that Lokram group has title to immovable property in plots 8 to 12 and that the alleged release deed dated 27.3.79 is forged, implying Murlidhar’s heirs retain a share in 8 to 12. (!) (!) (!) - There is evidence from letters (2.11.93; 3.1.94) and the rectification deed supporting Lokram group’s rights in the property, indicating the heirs’ title extends beyond mere profits in dissolution. (!) (!) (!) - The court limits itself to interlocutory relief under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, recognizing that the suit will be decided on full evidence and that safeguards may be offered to protect plaintiffs’ interests. (!) (!) (!) - The injunction is granted to restrain construction on plots 8 to 12 and related development activities using the aggregate F.S.I.of the entire land, pending trial, with potential modification on terms safeguarding plaintiffs’ rights. (!) (!)

What is the status of Murlidhar’s heirs' rights in plots 8 to 12 and related common property in the context of a registered rectification deed?What is the effect of notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act on a purchaser's rights when a registered instrument (rectification deed) concerns the property and the rights of co-owners/heirs?What determines the entitlement to temporary injunction in a title-dispute involving a builder and co-partners where there are competing claims to immovable property and alleged forged release deeds?