JUDGMENT :

S.G. Shah, J.

Considering the facts and circumstances and when other side is appearing through caveat, matter has been taken up for final disposal at such admission stage itself. Hence, RULE. Ld. Advocate Mr. Chirag B. Patel waives service of rule for the respondent.

2. Heard both the sides at length and perused the record.

3. It seems that this is luxury litigation for the petitioner, who is plaintiff before the Civil Court at Baroda in Regular Civil Suit No. 1387/2008 seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents - defendants with respect to plot nos. 639 and 650 contending that the defendants have sold both the plot nos. 639 and 650 after accepting sale consideration and handed over possession to the plaintiff and, therefore, now the plaintiff has become the owner and thereby he wants to restrain and refrain the defendants from creating any obstacle and from snatching away possession of the plots in question, for which it is contended that the defendants have given threats and causing damage to the property and ownership right of the plaintiff attached to such plots in question. The plaintiff has also prayed for ad-interim injunction by filing an application at exh. 5 in the same suit so as to restrain the defendants to the similar extent of causing obstacles to the plaintiff in enjoying and possessing the plots in question and to prevent the defendants from snatching away possession of the plots forcefully and illegally.

4. Such injunction application was dismissed by the trial Court by order dated 16/5/2014 and, therefore, after rushing to this Court during vacation when ultimately this Court has directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Court, the plaintiff has filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 122/2014 before the District Court at Baroda. However, such appeal is also now dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 20/8/2015 and hence the plaintiff has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging concurrent orders of both the Courts below i.e. trial Court and first appellate Court.

5. The sum and substance of the petitioner's case, as emerging from the record, is to the effect that the Power of Attorney holder of the defendant no. 1 being defendant no. 2, has executed Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] in favour of the plaintiff to sell both the plot nos. 639 and 650 to the plaintiff against consideration of totalRs.38,51,000/- and though the plaintiff has paid such amount to the defendants, defendants are disturbing possession of plot no. 650 and hence the suit. Detailed description of the property in question is well described in the pleadings and, therefore, in this petition under Article 227 against concurrent findings of two Courts below, the factual details of suit property is not in dispute and material and hence I have not reproduced the details of the same herein.

6. However, the present controversy is only for limited purpose of right and title of the plaintiff so far as plot no. 650 is concerned, because both the Courts below have, while dismissing the application of the plaintiff for plot no. 650, protected his right so far as plot no. 639 is concerned. Even defendants are not claiming or disputing the possession of plot no. 639 by the plaintiff. Therefore, now we are concerned with the rights of the plaintiff so far as plot no. 650 is concerned and, therefore, now I am restricting the factual discussion so far as plot no. 650 only is concerned.

7. The plaintiff's suit is practically based upon two MOUs, first is dated 11/4/2007 and second is dated 30/3/2008, copies of which are produced at Annexure-D by the petitioner. If we peruse both such documents, it specifically transpires and makes it clear that MOU dated 11/4/2007 is certainly signed by the defendant no. 2 as a second party in such MOU, but if we peruse the entire document, it is clear and obvious that such MOU is only for one plot i.e. plot no. 639 and there is no