SAI DEVELOPERS Vs. NAKULAN S PANNIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Mr.Arpit A.Kapadia, Mr.Gaurav Mathur, Mr.Alkesh N.Shah and Mr.Kashyap K. Pujara, learned advocates, waive notice of admission for respondents Nos.1 to 4, respectively. On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the Appeal is being heard and finally decided.

(2.) THE appellants (original plaintiffs) have initiated Special Civil Suit No.186 of 2010 in the Trial Court to declare, that the Agreement dated 02.08.2010 regarding the suit property entered into between the appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, as well as the Possession Receipt dated 31.07.2010, executed by appellant No.1, be declared to be null and void, and to declare that the Possession Receipt is not legal as it is obtained by exercising fraud, and further to declare that they are in possession of the same by virtue of order passed in Civil Suit No.350 of 2000 and that the defendants have no right in the same. THE appellants/ plaintiffs further prayed that the defendants be restrained from interfering in the suit property or selling, transferring, assigning or creating any rights in the same. THE appellants have filed an application at Exhibit 5, interalia, praying for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, restraining the respondents from taking the possession of the suit land from the appellants, except in accordance with law, which has been dismissed by the impugned order, giving rise to the filing of the present Appeal from Order.

(3.) THE plaint and application Ex.5 have been contested by respondents by filing a Written Statement, as well as reply to the application at Ex.5, wherein they have taken a stand that the physical or mental condition of appellant No.1 is not known to them. However, they have paid an amount of Rs.10 crores to the appellants who have not produced the receipts thereof before the Trial Court. THE appellant No.1 was in sound physical and mental condition at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 29.04.2010, assigning the decree. THE remaining amount of Rs.66 crores is to be paid to the appellants only after the title of the suit property is cleared and the responsibility to ensure this is upon the appellants. Without making any settlement with the heirs of the original owner or getting the title of the property in question cleared, the appellants have filed the suit, solely with a malafide intention of depriving the respondents of the suit property even after receiving a huge amount of Rs.10 crores. Not only this, the appellant No.1 has taken blank, undated cheques of Rs.66 crores, as security towards the settlement with third parties, which was to be made within a period of four months, as per the Agreement. However, before the said period expired, the appellants have filed the suit with an intention of backtracking from the terms of Agreement. According to the respondents, after assignment of the Decree in their favour, the appellants have no right in the suit property. THE possession of the suit property is with the respondents, as per Possession Receipt dated 31.07.2010. THE respondents/ defendants assert that the appellants/ plaintiffs have no prima-facie case and the balance of convenience is not in their favour, and neither would they suffer irreparable loss if an injunction is not granted in their favour.