JUDGMENT :

1. In the Special Civil Suit No. 102/2020 instituted by the Respondents-Plaintiffs, seeking cancellation of registered sale deeds, perpetual injunction and alternatively for recovery of Rs.3,57,50,073/-, the learned trial Court at intermediate stage, vide order dated 11th February, 2021 restrained the Appellants-Defendants from creating the third party rights in the suit properties. That order is challenged, under Order 43 Rule -1(r) read with Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are like this;

Plaintiff executed instrument of registered sale deed, dated 26th February, 2020, in respect of suit properties in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2 for lum sum consideration of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-. The sale deed was registered with Sub-Registrar Haveli No.6 at Pune. Towards the consideration, Defendant No.1 and 2 paid part of it, by RTGS and issued postdated cheques. Six cheques were returned unpaid in the month of April and July, 2020. Thereafter Plaintiffs did not deposit eleven cheques (all postdated) as requested by the Defendant No. 1 and 2. It is Plaintiffs case that during June to August, 2020, Defendants paid Rs. 6,00,000/-by RTGS. Thus, out of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, the Defendnat No.1 and 2 paid only Rs. 79,7417/-; leaving balance of Rs. 3,20,25,829/-. In spite of these facts, Defendant No.1 and 2 sold suit properties to the Defendant No. 3 to 14 by executing sale deeds dated on 3rd July, 2020; 7th July, 2020; 6th August, 2020; 14th August, 2020 and 19th August, 2020. Although the Defendant No. 1 and 2 were repeatedly called upon to pay balance purchase price, they evaded to pay under one pretext or other. Constrained thereby, Plaintiffs filed suit on 21st September, 2020, against the Defendants seeking following reliefs;

(a). cancellation of the sale deeds in respect of properties described in Paragraph No.1 (i) to 1(iii) of the plaint;

(b). declaration that the sale deeds in respect of properties described in Paragraph 1(iv) to 1(viii) of the plaint are not binding on them;

(c). alternatively for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,57,50,073/-;

(d). for consequential relief for injunction and other reliefs.

3. Pending suits, Plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain Defendants from creating third party rights/ interest in the suit properties.

4. Defendant No.1 and 2 denied the suit claim, they contended, that on execution of the sale deed and upon its’ registration, title in the suit properties has passed on to them and therefor, suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds was maintainable. heir case is after acquiring title vide sale deeds executed in July, August and September, 2020 they sold the suit properties to the Defendant No. 3 to 14. Besides it is their case that, before executing the sale deed dated 26th February, 2020, they paid Rs. 2,14,96,199/-in cash to the Plaintiffs towards consideration of purchase price, when transaction was captured in the CCTV. In support thereof, they produced a pendrive. As such according to them, they owe Rs. 976657/-to the Defendants. Therefore, it is their case, that Plaintiffs cannot seek cancellation of the sale deed, and at the most; the suit may be maintainable only for recovery of balance consideration. It is their contention that after executing the sale deed, the revenue record of the suit properties were altered. Thus, relying on the revenue records, respecting the suit properties, Defendant No.3 to 14 purchased the same from them under different sale deeds. As such Defendant No.3to 14 are bonafide purchasers. On these grounds, the Defendant no.1 and 2 opposed the temporary relief sought by the Plaintiffs.

5. Defendant No. 3 to 14 claimed that they were bonafide purchasers inasmuch as they performed due diligence before buying the suit properties, by verifying title of Defendant No.1 and 2. Also they had verified the revenue records respecting the suit properties, which at the material time was showing the names of Defendant No.1 and 2, as its owners.