KANCHANGIRI NARANGIRI GOSWAMI Vs. MUNAKKHAN YASINKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal from Order has been filed by the appellants- original defendants being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 112/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge, Valsad dated 6.7.2012 on the grounds stated in the memo of the Appeal from Order.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Shri Adil Mirza for the appellants-original defendants. The facts narrated and discussed in the memo of the suit as well as the impugned order make it very clear that the transactions have taken place. The original plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of the contract for which part payment has been made as stated in detail in the memo of the suit. The recitals in the agreement to sell require necessary mutual obligations like getting N.A. permission etc. and before the conditions could be complied with, further transaction took place as stated in detail. Such sale deeds in favour of the subsequent purchasers, including defendant No.2, has been executed in the year 2010 and in favour of defendant No. 3 in the year 2011.

(3.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel Shri Sanjanwala appearing with learned advocate Shri Dilip Kanojiya has referred to the papers and tried to submit with regard to the terms and conditions, the conduct of the parties and receipts are also produced with regard to the part payment. He has also referred to the papers with regard to the revenue proceedings and submitted that though N.A. permission was required to be obtained by the original vendor, they have executed the document in favour of original defendants Nos. 2 & 3 without getting necessary permission as per terms of the agreement with the respondents-original plaintiffs. He therefore submitted that on one hand though the land in question has been sold and has divested the interest, the proceedings for N.A. permission are pursued which would show that the subsequent transactions are only a camouflage to wriggle out from the commitment with the respondents-original plaintiffs. He submitted that in any case it shows the conduct that the amount has been pocketed from the plaintiffs, and after having received substantial amount, have failed to fulfill the commitment and has entered into transaction with others to get further amount for the same property.