JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.124 of 2014, whereby the learned Court has decreed the suit filed by the opponent Nos.1 and 2 – original plaintiffs and cancelled the notarized Agreement to Sell dated 10.08.2011. The learned Court has further directed the present appellant to handover possession of the suit property within a period of two months from the date of the judgment, and also directed the present appellant to pay mesne profits from 11.08.2014 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month till handing over possession of the suit property.

Factual Matrix:

2. The present respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs, the present appellant is the original defendant No.1, and the present respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the original defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the plaint (hereinafter the parties are referred to as per their original status).

2.1. The suit came to be filed by the original plaintiffs, who were partners of Shraddha Heat Treatment along with defendant No.3. The said partnership firm was possessing properties for industrial purposes situated at Bholav GIDC Estate, Bharuch, namely: Plot No.K-1/57/7, Phase-I shed along with machinery, and Plot No.K-1/57/8, Phase- I shed along with machinery (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). As contended in the plaint, the partnership firm was engaged in the business of heat treatment of bearings and repair work in the suit properties. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, who were partners of the partnership firm, executed a notarized Agreement to Sell (Banakhat) dated 10.08.2011 in favour of the present appellant as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4, agreeing to sell the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.71,00,000/-. It is further contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.4 had received token money of Rs.5,00,000/- from the present appellant, and it was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid in three different instalments.

2.2. The plaintiffs have contended that the said Banakhat was executed in connivance with defendant No.3, who was also a partner of the partnership firm and who allegedly acted both as a seller and purchaser in the said agreement to sell. It is further contended that the plaintiffs had neither received any amount towards the sale consideration nor had they signed the agreement to sell. It is further stated that defendant No.1 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.268 of 2012 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction, inter alia, declaring that defendant No.1 is the lawful possessor of the suit property on the basis of the Banakhat and praying that the suit property may not be transferred in favour of any third party. In the said suit, an application below Exhibit-5 was filed which was ordered to be heard along with the main civil suit. The plaintiffs appeared in the said proceedings and contended that the alleged Banakhat was executed in connivance with defendant No.3, who was a partner of the partnership firm along with the plaintiffs. It was further contended that the plaintiffs had neither received Rs.5,00,000/- nor any other amount towards the sale consideration. It was also contended that no suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell was filed, nor was any readiness and willingness shown to pay the remaining sale consideration. It was further contended that the said Banakhat was neither registered nor in possession of the plaintiffs and that the same was not executed by them. In the above background, the present Special Civil Suit No.124 of 2014 came to be filed seeking cancellation of the notarized agreement to sell dated 10.08.2011, along with a prayer for mesne profits and a direction to hand over possession of the suit property.

2.3. Upon service of summons, the defen