Sr.27--Reserved-29.03.2022 & Pronounced-07.04.2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Appeal from Order No. 422 / 2021

Alongwith

Interim Application No. 3270 / 2021

in

Appeal from Order No. 422 / 2021

Santosh Dnyanoba Gawade and Others

… Appellants

Versus

Prakash Nensukh Navlakha and Others

… Respondents

****

Senior Advocate Mr. Anil Anturkar alongwith Tushar

Sonawane a/w Ranjeet Shinde, Advocate for

Appellants.

Mr. R.D. Soni alongwith V.R. Kasle i/by Ram and Co.,

Advocate for Respondents.

****

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

RESERVED ON : 29^th MARCH, 2022.

PRONOUNCED ON: 7^th APRIL, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

In the Special Civil Suit No. 102/2020

instituted by the Respondents-Plaintiffs, seeking

cancellation of registered sale deeds, perpetual

1/18

Sr.27--Reserved-29.03.2022 & Pronounced-07.04.2022.doc

injunction and alternatively for recovery of Rs.

3,57,50,073/-, the learned trial Court at

intermediate stage, vide order dated 11^th February,

2021 restrained the Appellants-Defendants from

creating the third party rights in the suit

properties. That order is challenged, under Order-

43 Rule -1(r) read with Section 104 of the Civil

Procedure Code.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are like this;

Plaintiff executed instrument of registered sale

deed, dated 26^th February, 2020, in respect of suit

properties in favour of Defendant No.1 and 2 for lum

sum consideration of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-. The sale

deed was registered with Sub-Registrar Haveli No.6

at Pune. Towards the consideration, Defendant No.1

and 2 paid part of it, by RTGS and issued postdated

cheques. Six cheques were returned unpaid in the

month of April and July, 2020.

Thereafter

Plaintiffs did not deposit eleven cheques (all

2/18

Sr.27--Reserved-29.03.2022 & Pronounced-07.04.2022.doc

postdated) as requested by the Defendant No. 1 and

2. It is Plaintiffs case that during June to

August, 2020, Defendants paid Rs. 6,00,000/- by

RTGS. Thus, out of Rs. 4,00,00,000/-, the Defendnat

No.1 and 2 paid only Rs. 79,7417/-; leaving balance

of Rs. 3,20,25,829/-. In spite of these facts,

Defendant No.1 and 2 sold suit properties to the

Defendant No. 3 to 14 by executing sale deeds dated

on 3^rd July, 2020; 7^th July, 2020; 6^th August, 2020;

14^th August, 2020 and 19^th August, 2020. Although the

Defendant No. 1 and 2 were repeatedly called upon to

pay balance purchase price, they evaded to pay under

one pretext or other. Constrained thereby,

Plaintiffs filed suit on 21^st September, 2020,

against the Defendants seeking following reliefs;

(a). cancellation of the sale deeds in respect of

properties described in Paragraph No.1 (i) to 1(iii)

of the plaint;

(b). declaration that the sale deeds in respect of

properties described in Paragraph 1(iv) to 1(viii)

3/18

Sr.27--Reserved-29.03.2022 & Pronounced-07.04.2022.doc

of the plaint are not binding on them;

(c). alternatively for recovery of amount of Rs.

3,57,50,073/-;

(d). for consequential relief for injunction and

other reliefs.

3.

Pending suits, Plaintiffs sought injunction to

restrain Defendants from creating third party

rights/ interest in the suit properties.

4.

Defendant No.1 and 2 denied the suit claim, they

contended, that on execution of the sale deed and

upon its’ registration, title in the suit properties

has passed on to them and therefor, suit seeking

cancellation of the sale deeds was maintainable.

Their case is after acquiring title vide sale deeds

executed in July, August and September, 2020 they

sold the suit properties to the Defendant No. 3 to

14. Besides it is their case that, before executing

the sale deed dated 26^th February, 2020, they paid

4/18

Sr.27--Reserved-29.03.2022 & Pronounced-07.04.2022.doc

Rs. 2,14,96,199/- in cash to the Plaintiffs towards

consideration of