IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Smt. Manisha w/o. Balkrushna Kode – Appellant
Versus
Shri. Madanlal S/o. Uttamchand Desarda – Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 25 of 2023
Decided on : 02-08-2023
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 (1) (b) (c) - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 (1-A), (2) (v), 49 - Failed to perform her part of contract - Not to create third party interest in property - Appellant is challenging order passed whereby Civil Judge Senior Division clamped injunction against appellant directing defendant not to create third party interest in suit property – Held, Defendant has not denied execution of agreement to sell but has contended that agreement to sell was entered into under coercion - Defendant had kept money received under agreement of Rs.10 lakh in her account for more than 5 months - Thus, prima facie agreement cannot be said to be under coercion as there is no steps taken by defendant to return amount, rather defendant has kept money in her account and effect thereto is to be examined before trial court and thus no interference is called for at this stage, in order passed by trial Court - Plaintiff in course of submission had submitted that she is ready and willing to deposit entire amount if so directed by this Court - Since defendant has not responded to same, it is open for defendant to move an appropriate application to seek direction to deposit consideration amount before trial Court – Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present Appeal from Order, the appellant is challenging the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.1186 of 2022 in Exh.5 application, whereby the Civil Judge Senior Division clamped injunction against the present appellant – original defendant, directing the defendant not to create third party interest in the suit property during pendency of the Special Civil Suit No.1186 of 2022.
Facts giving rise to the filing the present Appeal from Order can be briefly summarized as under:
2. The respondent – plaintiff is an agriculturist and deals in real estate. The appellant – defendant is the lawful owner and possessor of the land to the extent of 1 Hector 21 R. land out of Gat No.114/1 situated at village Nakshatrawadi, Aurangabad. The appellant – defendant entered and executed agreement to sell in favour of the respondent – plaintiff on 17.06.2002. As the defendant allegedly failed to perform her part of contract, the plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.113/2014 for specific performance of contract and the said suit came to be dismissed. Against the said dismissal, Regular Civil Appeal No.287 of 2016 is filed and the same is still pending before the Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Aurangabad.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of the said Appeal, the defendant and her husband approached to the plaintiff and offered to compromise the matter on payment of higher consideration amount for the suit land and to settle the matter once for all. The plaintiff considering his own old age and that of the defendant too and with a view to settle the old litigation agreed for the same. The defendant thereby entered into a new agreement with plaintiff vide notary registered agreement dated 07.05.2022 in presence of witnesses including her husband, her then lawyers and grand-son of the plaintiff for sale of the suit land.
4. It is further the case of the respondent – plaintiff that in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff has paid the defendant Rs.10,00,000/- vide cheque No.479446 drawn on Axis Bank on the very date of the agreement out of the agreed total consideration amount of Rs.1,11,00,000/- [One Crore and Eleven Lakh rupees only]. The total consideration amount was agreed to be fixed at Rs.1,11,00,000/- for the total land of 3 Acre under the agreement and the remaining consideration amount of Rs.1,01,00,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant.
5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the initial payment of Rs.10,00,000/- was received and acknowledged by the defendant and that the plaintiff was required to pay the remaining amount within the period of four months from the date of execution of the said agreement. Thereafter, the plaintiff got prepared demand drafts of the remaining consideration amount. Thereafter the plaintiff and his grand son approached and contacted the defendant many times, but the defendant tried to avoid talking or meeting the plaintiff but assured the plaintiff to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, but avoided on several grounds to execute the sale deed. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff called upon the defendant by issuing legal notice through his advocate on 07.10.2022 to remain present on the given date before Sub Registrar Office and to perform her part of contract but the defendant failed to comply the notice duly served on the defendant so also the defendant did not reply to the said notice. The plaintiff had also registered lis pendence of the suit property vide deed No.1071/2014 dated 03.03.2014.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant with malafide intention and to deceive the lawful rights and interest of the plaintiff, transferred the odd amount of Rs.11,00,000/-
Balasaheb Sahebrao Jadhav Vs. Hanumant Bhaurao Deshmukh reported in 1995 (1) MhLJ 473
I.S.Sikandar (Dead) By LRS. Vs. K.Subramani and others reported in (2013) 15 SCC 27
K. Arumuga Velaiah Vs. P. R. Ramasamy and another reported in (2022) 3 SCC 757
An unregistered agreement to sell cannot serve as a basis for injunctive relief against a true owner of property, reflecting the necessity of registration under relevant laws.
(1) Registration of document is not sine qua non for receiving the same as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.(2) Plaintiff can very well make alternative prayer in a suit for ....
An oral agreement for the sale of immovable property is unenforceable without a written and registered agreement under the Registration Act and Specific Relief Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered agreement for the sale of immovable property is admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance, and the protection ....
An unregistered sale agreement can be considered for proving possession and specific performance, and an agreement to sell does not confer any right, title, or interest over the property, thus not re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.