The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and validity of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) as an agreement for sale, and the court's authority to grant a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo of the suit property.

Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 9, Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 12 and Mr. Vernekar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 10 and 11.

2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16/03/2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa, whereby the application for temporary injunction (Exhibit D-4) filed by the appellants in Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012, has been dismissed.

4. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of the Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012/C. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants.

5. Plaintiffs have filed the said Special Civil Suit No. 48/2012/C for declaration, specific performance and other reliefs and in that suit, they had filed the said application (Exhibit D-4) for temporary injunction, to restrain the defendant no. 12, his heirs, administrators, representatives, executors, assigns, agents, servants or any person/s acting on his behalf, pending the disposal of the suit, from disposing, alienating, selling, transferring, conveying, mortgaging, hypothecating, interfering with, and encumbering the suit property in any manner and/or from carrying out any construction activity or any interference in any manner in the suit property and/or in any manner changing the nature of the suit property and to direct the Sub-Registrar of Mapusa, Bardez-Goa not to register any Deed of Sale, Assignment, Transfer, Lease, Mortgage, Hypothecation, Trusts, concerning the suit property.

6. The suit property is a landed property, along with old residential house admeasuring 200 square metres, bearing Calangute Panchayat House No. 1/238, known as “Romungo” or “Valentry” or commonly called “Gauncorio Cudco” situated at Calangute, described in Land Registration Office of Bardez under No. 10830 of Book B-28 New and enrolled in the Land Revenue Office under Matriz No. 964, admeasuring 750 square metres and bearing survey no. 141/21-A.

7. The Plaintiffs' case, in short, is as follows:-

On 24th August, 2011 a memorandum of understanding (MOU), on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/-, was executed by which the defendants no.1 to 9 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs. Before that, the plaintiffs were informed the details as to how the title to the suit property had devolved upon the said defendants no. 1 to 9. The said property was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs for total consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/- (Rupees one crore seventy lakhs only). The plaintiffs paid to the defendants no.1 to 9 an amount of Rs..6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) as token amount. Subsequently, the plaintiffs found that the title of the said defendants no.1 to 9 was defective and that the defendants no. 10 and 11 were legal representatives of late Mrs. Ana Eugenia Menezes and were necessary parties to the deed. The defendant no.7 stated that she would instruct her lawyer to initiate necessary inventory proceedings to cure the defect and not to have deed of sale executed on 10th October, 2011. On 15/01/2012, the plaintiff no.1 received a letter via email from defendant no. 7, on behalf of the defendants no. 1, 3, 8 and on her own behalf, informing that MOU dated 24th August, 2011 stood cancelled and that the defendants were willing to refund the earnest money. By reply dated 17th January, 2012, the plaintiff no.1 informed the defendant no. 7 that she could not have cancelled the MOU unilaterally and that the same continues to be valid and accordingly, a legal notice dated 20th January, 2012 was addressed to the defendants no.1 to 9. Even notices were published in the local news paper dated 24th January, 2012 informing the public in general that