IMPORTANT POINT
A suit for injunction can be maintained based on possession derived from a registered agreement for sale, despite the absence of a formal sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shetye, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr. Kamble, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d).

2. By consent of parties, present Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing. Revision Applicants are Defendants before Trial Court. Respondents - Plaintiffs filed Suit being Reg. Civil Suit No. 53/2014 against original Defendants. Org. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 expired in the interregnum and their legal heirs are the Revision Applicants before me along with original Defendant No. 3. Original Plaintiff has also expired and legal heirs are the Plaintiffs in the Suit. Original Defendant No. 1 is the mother of Defendants. Defendants are aggrieved with the rejection of their application filed below Exh. 128 under O. VII R. 11(d) of the CPC. Defendants sought rejection of the Suit plaint in the facts and circumstances governing the dispute between the parties.

3. Learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order rejected the Application despite returning a finding that the contention of Defendants is a valid ground for rejection of injunction. Plaintiff has filed Suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction and nothing more. Suit plaint is annexed at Exh. A to CRA. Prayer clause (a) in paragraph No. 16 of the Suit plaint seeks perpetual injunction against Defendants from disturbing possession of Plaintiffs or creating any disturbance with possession in respect of Suit property. Prayer (b) is a consequential declaratory relief sought by Plaintiffs seeking injunction against Defendants from dispossessing Plaintiffs from the Suit property. Reliefs prayed for in the Suit are on the premise that Plaintiffs are in possession of Suit lands. Suit lands are described in paragraph No. 2 of Suit plaint being agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 75/1 (part) and 75/3 (part) and 75/4, totally ad-measuring 1 H 44 R and 2 H 02 R situated at Village Yashwant Nagar, Taluka Vikramgad, Dist. Thane (now Dist. Palghar).

4. Mr. Shetye, learned Advocate appearing for Defendants would submit that the facts in the present case if seen and appreciated correctly by the Court would clearly reveal that Suit filed by original Plaintiff is simplicitor for injunction and it is not maintainable since original Plaintiff had no legal right of ownership and entitlement to the Suit lands. He would submit that a Suit for injunction is necessarily filed on the basis of legal and juridical title by the owner of Suit lands if he anticipates any threat to his possession. He would submit that in the instant case, the original Plaintiff or his legal heirs are not in possession of Suit lands but on the ground of claiming to be in possession of Suit been filed. He would submit that if original Plaintiff was in possession of Suit lands then his possession has to be qualified by an appropriate document of title in his favour like a sale deed or conveyance but in the present case the Plaintiffs are not in a position to produce any document of title enabling them to claim title to the Suit lands.

4.1. In the above background, Mr. Shetye has argued that the lis between parties dates back to the Defendants’ mother executing an agreement for sale of the Suit lands with the original Plaintiff. He would submit that the said agreement admittedly for sale did not fructify and has remained as it is. He would submit that admittedly no sale deed was ever executed or registered between the parties. He would argue that admittedly, mother of Defendants was the owner of the Suit lands and after her demise, names of Defendants have been mutated as holders of the Suit lands in the revenue record.

4.2. He would candidly inform the Court that by agreement for sale dated 13.07.1992 mother of Defendants namely Sumati Ganpat Mahajan agreed to sell the Suit lands to original Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 1,76,000/-. He would submit that out of this total consideration, part consideration was paid by original Plaintiff and received by mother of Defendant