The main legal point established in the judgment is that unregistered documents do not confer enforceable rights, and bonafide purchasers cannot be deprived of their ownership rights based on unregistered agreements.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. By consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. The appellant/original defendant No.7 to 27 are challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No.22/2018 dated 31/01/2022 below Exhibit 63 in an application by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that an agreement of joint venture was executed on 30/12/2006 between deceased Jagdish Khungar along with plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 at one part and defendant Nos.4 to 6 then minor through their natural guardian i.e. mother (defendant No.2) on other part. Further contention of the plaintiffs was that there is another agreement of joint venture dated 24/03/2011 was executed between one deceased Jagdish Khungar along with plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 at one part and defendant Nos.1 to 3 at another part and plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 on other part. The subject matter of the suit was field Survey No.10603 admeasuring 4 H 4 R situated at Wani, District Yavatmal.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.22/2018 for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of money. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit property may be handed over to the plaintiffs and the sale deeds more specifically described in the plaint may be declared as void. The appellants herein (defendant Nos.7 to 15) the purchasers of the suit property filed their written statements. They denied the right of the plaintiffs to file the suit. As plaintiffs are strangers to the properties and the transactions, they have no cause of action for instituting the suit. Similar is the stand taken by defendant Nos.16 to 27. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction. By this application, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 were not permitted to alienate any of the plots from the stock in trade. They also claimed that the sale deeds for which plots in question were sold, were illegal. They further prayed that defendants may be restrained from selling the plots in stock and restraining defendant Nos.7 to 27 from recording illegal sale of plots on their names in Revenue Record by issuing temporary injunction and from restraining the defendants from creating any third party interests in the sold plots and making changes in mutation entries as regards the said plots.

5. The defendants/ appellants herein filed their respective replies to the application for the aforesaid application. They stated that there is no prima facie case in favour of plaintiffs and the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos. 7 to 15 and 16 to 27 claimed that they are the bonafide purchasers of the plots out of the suit property and also claimed rejection of plaint under Section 41 (h), (i) and (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

6. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kelapur vide order dated 30/01/2021 held that great hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs and if the subject matter changes, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs. The main ground of challenge to the said order is that the learned Trial Court was in error in allowing the application of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the agreements dated 30/12/2006 and 24/03/2011 between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not registered and the same are executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper.

7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for appellant that defendant Nos.7 to 15 and 16 to 27 are the bonafide purchasers and plaintiffs are strangers to the plots in the suit property. It was not shown how irreparable loss would cause to the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court totally erred in holding that the plaintiffs had legal rights and interests over the suit land in order to carry out its developments on the basis of their privity of contract with defendant Nos.1 to 6. While holding this, the learned Trial Court totally ignored the fact that t