Agreements for future-allotted land enforceable at interim stage if substantial payments prima facie proven by bank records and accepted by owners via intermediaries, despite non-execution by owners; injunction granted overturning trial rejection emphasizing conduct over formalities.

JUDGEMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Appellants and Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.10 and 11.

2. Appeal from Order is filed by Original Plaintiff assailing rejection of Exhibit ‘5’ Order dated 13.06.2025 in Special Civil Suit No. 93 of 2024. Parties shall be referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendants for convenience. Appeal from Order is admitted on 22.07.2025. Suit is filed for specific performance of Agreements dated 10.02.2010 and 26.02.2013. Impugned order rejects Exhibit ‘5’ Application holding that Plaintiffs have prima facie failed to prove that rights were created in their favour in respect of Suit plot vide Agreement / MOU dated 26.02.2013. Appeal From Order was admitted on 22.07.2025. Trial Court has granted order of status quo which is continued by this Court. Pleadings are completed in the Appeal from Order. It is heard finally today.

3. To decide the Appeal from Order, the following relevant facts are necessary for consideration:-

3.1. On 18.10.2002, partnership firm in the name of Anita Developers comprising the Plaintiffs as partners was established. On 18.12.2007 CIDCO issued letter in favor of Defendant Nos.1 to 16 (original land owners) showing willingness to allot Plot No.57 situated at Sector 9, village Ulwe, Panvel, District Raigad under the 12.5% State Government scheme. On 19.12.2007 CIDCO issued LOI in favor of Defendant Nos.1 to 16. On 10.02.2010, Defendant Nos.1 to 16 executed agreement in favour of Defendant Nos.17 and 18 to transfer the said land in their favour conferring upon them further right to transfer the said land for consideration of Rs.2.25 crores. On 26.02.2013 Defendant Nos.17 and 18 executed a Memorandum Of Understanding (for short “MOU”) in favour of Plaintiff’s firm comprising of Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as partners and received consideration of Rs. 1.62 crores. On 04.12.2014 CIDCO issued corrigendum for correction of the allotted Plot No.57 substituting it with Plot No.37. Between 2013 to August 2020 Plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.3,12,02,667/- intermittently at regular intervals to Defendant Nos.1 to 16. During this period 3 of the original Defendants expired, hence monies were paid by Plaintiffs to their legal heirs.

3.2. On 22.11.2022 CIDCO executed lease agreement in favour of Defendant Nos.1 to 16 (3 of the Defendants being represented by their legal heirs) being the original land owners entitled to suit Plot No.37 (hereinafter referred to as the “said land”).

3.3. In the backdrop of the aforesaid events, on 13.04.2023, Defendant Nos.1 - 16 executed a tripartite agreement with CIDCO as the confirming party in favour of Defendant Nos.19 and 20. Defendant Nos.19 and 20 are arrayed as Respondent No.10 and 11 in the Appeal From Order before me. They are the only contesting parties before me today. Plaintiffs being aggrieved filed Special Civil Suit No.93 of 2024 seeking specific performance of the Agreements / MOU dated 10.02.2010 and 26.02.2013 and sought mandatory injunction in respect of the said land. Defendant No.2 to 4, 6, 10, 11 and 22 appeared before Trial Court and resisted the Suit by filing Written Statement. Defendant Nos.19 and 20 filed Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 on 24.10.2024 in response to which Plaintiffs filed Application below Exhibit 97 for Amendment of Suit Plaint and deletion of the partnership firm. Though Trial Court rejected the Applica