DASHRATHJI TALAJI THAKOR Vs. POPATJI PUNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal from order is filed by the appellant challenging the order dtd. 11/2/2020 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.50 of 2018.

(2.) Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia, learned advocate for the appellant - original plaintiff has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order rejecting the application seeking injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit lands. She has further submitted that the suit property was originally belonging to Hiraji Motiji, his four sons and two daughters out of which, the legal heirs of daughter Rajniben i.e. respondent nos.1 to 16 had transferred their share by entering into banakhat and power of attorney dtd. 16/6/2017 in favour of the appellant. She has further submitted that total sale consideration was agreed for an amount of Rs.68.00 lakhs out of which, the plaintiff claimed to have given token amount of Rs.11.00 lakhs in cash to said respondent nos.1 to 16. She has further submitted that by relying upon the terms and conditions of banakhat, it was agreed between the parties to pay the remaining amount of sale consideration at the time of execution of registered sale deed. The cause of action arose when the appellant-original plaintiff became aware about the fact that respondent nos.1 to 16 were in process of transferring the suit land to respondent nos.7 to 29.

(3.) In background of the aforesaid fact, the attention of this Court was drawn to the impugned order refusing injunction. She has submitted that the Court-below committed serious error by not appreciating the fact that for the limited purpose of grant of injunction, at this stage, the relief could not have been denied merely on the ground that banakhat is not a registered document. She has further submitted that the plaintiff with the aid of corroborative material may prove the execution of banakhat at evidence stage, however, at the stage of Exh.5 application, the Trial Court ought to have considered banakhat executed in their favour. She further submitted that the defendants may transfer the suit land, which may prejudice the right of the plaintiff to seek specific performance of the contract. She has, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court ought to have granted injunction against the defendants pending the suit.