RAJASHREE Vs. VITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the divergent orders of the Courts below wherein the Appellate Court while entertaining the Miscellaneous Appeal No.5/2021 filed by the defendants has set aside the order passed by the Trial Court granting injunction in favour of plaintiffs.

(2.) The petitioner No.1/plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration and injunction based on a construction agreement dtd. 2/4/2009. Plaintiff has also alleged that the defendants have executed a GPA in favour of her husband and her husband has invested huge amount for construction and also spent money for securing permission from the competent authorities. The Court of first instance has allowed the application and the defendants are restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The Appellate Court while examining the said document found that the construction agreement cannot be looked into at this stage for want of registration. Referring to Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the Appellate Court was of the view that the construction agreement requires registration and therefore, was of the view that this is not a fit case where the learned Judge could have exercised discretion in favour of plaintiffs, who are asserting right under construction agreement and consequently appeal is allowed and the injunction application is rejected and thereby parties are relegated to substantiate their respective claims by way of full-fledged trial.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the divergent orders passed by the Courts below.