Dinesh Rajkumar Notwani and Another vs Tushar Pundlik Patil and Others

Appeal from order is directed against order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the Trial Court rejecting application for temporary injunction preferred in Spl. C. S. No. 03 of 2023. Appellants are original plaintiffs, who have filed suit for specific performance of contract in respect of agreement dated 06.03.2021 and declaration that sale deed dated 08.12.2022 is bad in law. Further consequential reliefs are also solicited.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Anand Bhandari would submit that agreement executed in favour of the appellants empowered by clause No. 4 to get the sale deed executed from the original owner. It is submitted that out of the total consideration of Rs. 01 Crore, the sizable amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- is parted by respondent No. 1 to the original owner.

¶12

2 65 ao 01.24

¶13

It is submitted that there is disparity in the consideration because the ultimate sale deed executed on 08.12.2022 was of lessor value i. e. Rs. 78,00,000/-. It is further submitted that the contract is subsequent in time and agreement issued in favour of the appellants would prevail. It is submitted that there is strong prima facie case in favour of the appellants. It is further submitted that fraudulently the subsequent agreement was executed in favour of the respondent No. 3 by-passing the claim of the appellants. It is submitted that the trial Court committed perversity and patent illegality in rejecting the application Exhibit No. 06. The appellants are likely to suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Mukul Kulkarni would oppose the submissions and he would submit that no right is created in favour of the appellants and the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. By way of subsequent sale transaction the contract which was existing between the appellants and the respondent No. 1 was repudiated and the respondent No. 1 has signed the sale deed. It is submitted that the appellants do not have any case and at the most they can sue the respondent No. 1 for refund of the amount. It is further submitted that inadequacy of the consideration cannot be a ground for staking claim against the respondents. It is further submitted that clause No. 4 of the agreement dated 05.10.2020 is not forceable.

¶15

I have considered rival submissions of the parties.

¶16

3 65 ao 01.24

¶17

Undisputedly, one Bakulabai @ Monikadevi was owner of the property and she had executed the agreement of sale on 05.10.2020 in favour of the respondent No. 1. The consideration was fixed of Rs. 01 crores and out of that Rs. 15,00,000/- were parted with. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 executed unregistered agreement on 06.03.2021 in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and the appellants parted with amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards earnest amount. The respondent No. 2, who stepped into shoes of original owner sold the suit land to the respondent No. 3 by registered sale deed dated 08.12.2022 for consideration of Rs. 78,00,000/-.

¶18

The suit for specific performance of contract is founded on agreement dated 06.03.2021 executed in favour of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 had no salable title because agreement executed by original owner in his favour was not culminated into transfer of title. He had a limited right to sue original owner for specific performance of contract. But instead of doing so he consented for getting his agreement cancelled by signing sale deed dated 08.12.2022.

¶19

It is rightly pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni for the respondents that the recitals in the sale deed dated 08.12.2022 discloses repudiation of the earlier contract executed between the respondent No. 1 and original owner Bakulabai @ Monikadevi. Pertinently, the respondent No. 1 is party to the contract. The appellants could lay claim only against the

¶20

4 65 ao 01.24

¶21

respondent No. 1 to whom the earnest amount of Rs. 15,00,000/was paid by them.

¶22

The earlier contract between the original owner and the respondent No. 1 has been repudiated and, therefore, it’s clause No. 4 is unenforceable. Even If the clause is held to be enforceable that would not enable the respondent No. 1 – Tushar Patil to enter into agreement unless he gets salable title.

¶23

Learned Judge has taken plausible and reasonable view in rejecting the application. No prima facie case is made out. I do not find that appellants are likely to suffer any irreparable loss. The interest of the parties is protected by implication of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. No provision has been pointed out to exercise jurisdiction U/Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for clamping injunction against the appellants. Appeal from order is dismissed.

¶24

Needless to state that observations made in the foregoing paragraphs are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits.

¶25

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

¶26

bsb/Jan. 26

Dinesh Rajkumar Notwani and Another v. Tushar Pundlik Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Rajkumar Notwani and Another v. Tushar Pundlik Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr. Sunil Navalu Magdum and Ors. vs Mr. Navalkumar Bhimrao Halbagol Ors.

Arun Shrikishan Agarwal and Others vs Mangala Rameshji Saraswat and Another

Sitaram Suratram Ghunawat vs The Executive Engineer, Godawari Minor Irrigation Department

Nitin Asaram Kamble vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Virnath Kashinat Tongale (Died) Mahadevi and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Osmanabad and Ors.

Namdev Sakharam Magar Died Thr Lrs Kishan Namdev Magar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Parbhani and Ors.