The enforceability of land agreements requires clarity on property specifications and consideration, with injunction decisions dependent on a balance of convenience.

The dispute has triggered due to giving of a direction by the Government to the Collector vide letter date 11-01-2018. Land admeasuring 8480 Sq.mtrs. of land from Survey No.43, 44/2 from village Wathoda, Nagpur. The said land was released as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The defendant No.14 as a Power of Attorney holder was the recipient of the said letter. That has made the present plaintiff panic and he got disturbed due to reference of name of defendant No.14 in the said letter. According to plaintiff, it is he who made all the correspondence and follow up for release of surplus land and the defendant No.14 unauthorizedly wanted to take benefit from the Government ofÏcials.

02] The plaintiff rests his claim on the unregistered agreement dated 04-05-2013 with defendant Nos. 1 to 13. They are the legal representatives of common ancestor Chindhuji Kaware.

The details are not given because there is no dispute amongst the legal representatives (except the L.Rs. of defendant No.9- Shakuntalabai Kumbhalkar). As per this agreement, there was a arrangement in between the plaintiff on one hand and the original owners on the other hand about distribution of land which will be released as per Talegaon Dabhade Scheme. The distribution was 2/3 and 1/3 to the plaintiff and original owners respectively. The plaintiff did follow up with the government authorities. But he could not succeed in getting land released.

03] In the meantime, the original owners entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 02-11-2016 (and dated 01-11-2018) and a Power of Attorney dated 02-11-2016 in favour of defendant No.14. He also did the follow up for release of land and ultimately was successful in getting a letter dated 11-01-2018.

04] Plaintiff being disturbed by the name of defendant No.14 called upon the original owners by notice dated 12-10-2018. It was neither replied nor complied. It prompted the plaintiff to file a specific performance suit of the agreement dated 04-05-2013. Out of 8480 sq.mtrs of land plaintiff claimed right over 4601.1918 sq.mtrs of land. The original owners and new purchasers were defendant Nos. 1 to 13 and defendant No.14 respectively. There was an interim injunction application filed.

05] All the defendants appeared before the trial Court. Defendant Nos. 1 to 13 have denied the averments in the plaint and also denied execution of the unregistered agreement dated 04-05-2013. In addition to that, they have challenged the agreement on the basis of consent terms dated 20-04-2013 executed in earlier instituted Special Civil Suit No.996/2007. Defendant No.14 also resisted the suit and denied the averments. He took various defences including limitation, non-specification of the property, absence of consideration and incompetence of the plaintiff to enter into the agreement in question in view of the consent terms.

06] The trial Court was pleased to grant the injunction and restrained all the defendants from creating third party interest in any manner as per the order dated 21-12-2019. This order is challenged before us by two sets of defendants. Appeal Against Order No. 19/2020 is filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 9 (except defendant No.8) whereas Appeal Against Order No. 22/2020 is filed by defendant No.14.

07] Learned Advocate Shri Shinde and learned Advocate Shri Dharmadhikari argued on behalf of respective appellants (AO Nos. 19/20 and 22/20 respectively). Learned Advocate Shri Shinde also relied upon certain documents in the form of private Handwriting Expert’s opinion on the point of signatures of original owner on the agreement in question. We will decide the same in this appeal itself. Whereas, learned Advocate Shri Joharapurkar argued for the original plaintiff and