IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a registered deed of conveyance for the transfer of immovable property, the preferential right to acquire property in certain cases, the admissibility of documents, and the grant of temporary injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Appeals From Orders are preferred under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short). Appeal From Order no.12 of 2023 is filed by the original defendant nos.2 to 4 being aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2023 passed below Exh.5 in SCS No.16 of 2022 (Old RCS No.98 of 2020) by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Valsad, whereby the applicant Exh.5 preferred by the original plaintiffs seeking injunction against the defendants came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the very same order, defendant no.5 has filed the Appeal From Order No.13 of 2023.

2. As both these appeals are arising out of the same order, the facts are same and the arguments advanced are also same, they were ordered to be tagged together by a previous order dated 1.2.2023. Accordingly, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to hereinafter by their original status of plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals, as stated in the memo of appeals are such that the opponents-original plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.16 of 2022 (Old RCS No.98 of 2020) for partition, declaration, permanent injunction and also for accounts against the defendant nos.1 to 4 (who are the brothers of the plaintiffs) and against the defendant no.5 who is subsequent purchaser; that on 10.5.2019 and 22.1.2020, the appellants herein entered into an agreement to sale for the suit property with defendant no.5, originally the said property was an agricultural land which was subsequently converted into non- agriculture land and at present, the defendant no.5 is putting up the construction over the said property. It is averred that along with the said suit, application Exh.5 was also preferred by the plaintiffs to which the defendants opposed and after hearing the said application, the learned trial Court has allowed the said application at Exh.5 vide order dated 12.1.2023. The defendant nos.1 to 4 and defendant no.5 gave applications at Exh.78 and 79 respectively, praying to stay the said order to approach the higher forum, which was allowed and the order passed below Exh.5 was stayed for 20 days.

These appeals from order were filed and when listed, notice was issued and the said order of staying the impugned order passed below Exh.5 application is continued from time to time by various orders passed by this Court.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Thakore with learned senior advocate Ms.Trusha Patel with learned advocate Mr.Nisarg Raval for the appellants of Appeal From Order no.13 of 2023 has submitted that the dispute is with regard to the land bearing Survey No.130/2 (Block No.523) admeasuring 11,176 sq.mtrs of village Atakpardi, Taluka and District Valsad (hereinafter referred to the ‘the disputed land’ for the sake of brevity); that the plaintiffs are sisters of defendants nos.1-4; that the impugned suit is filed by the plaintiffs contending that the disputed land along with other properties mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint were ancestral properties and they have share in the same; that a notarized undertaking dated 23.4.2018 was executed by plaintiffs and it was agreed that the defendants nos.1 to 4 would give some amount to the sisters and upon receipt of the same, the sisters would relinquish their rights qua the disputed land; however, no such amount is received by them and therefore the registered relinquishment deed dated 7.5.2018 executed by them was under undue influence; that the Mutation entry which was posted pursuant to the relinquishment deed was also posted and certified without following due process of law and therefore the registered agreements to sell dated 10.5.2019 and 22.1.2020 executed by the defendants no.1 to 4 are also illegal and not binding to them. He submitted that with the said pleadings, the plaintiffs had filed the said suit.

4.2 Learned senior