HARSHAD JAISANGBHAI PATEL Vs. PRADIPBHAI NARSINHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by refusal of interim relief in the Civil Suit by the Courts below. At the outset, I may say that though the matter was argued with quite vehemence by the learned advocates for the parties, I would try to reach to the conclusion by expressing briefly opinion on the merits of the case. I would try to be as brief as possible in expression of my opinion not only because the proceedings are just at "initial" stage, but also because short question in detail submission raised was where in the circumstances of the case lay the equity ?

(2.) Short relevant facts are thus : The suit property is situated at Village Varnama, District and Tauluka Vadodara. The suit property is Block No.101 and 109. It is say of the plaintiff that in 1982, the respondent / defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The sale price alleged to have been fixed between the parties is 70,000/. The plaintiff alleged to have paid Rs.63,000/to the respondent defendant. Lateron, in 1995 on 14.05.1995 the petitioner had said to have paid remaining Rs.7,000/to the respondent. Parties are closely related. It was submitted at the time of hearing that they are cousin brothers. Admittedly, no written agreement was executed, it is the say of the plaintiff that suit property was transferred pursuant to oral agreement entered into between the parties. It is also say of the plaintiff that in pursuant to the said transaction, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. The other relevant facts is, the respondent had executed power of attorney in favour of real brother of the plaintiff. The said power of attorney was executed on 17.05.1995. It is further case of the plaintiff that on 25.06.2006, Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred as 'MoU') was executed in respect of suit transaction and therein the respondent had acknowledged the receipt of sale consideration. The plaintiff thereafter had said to have called upon the respondent to execute the sale deed on 13.08.2008 but no response on behalf of the respondent and thereafter, giving of alleged oral threat to the petitioner in respect of suit transaction has led the petitioner to institute the Regular Civil Suit No.977 of 2008 before Senior Division Court, Baroda. In substance the prayer of the plaintiff is in two part; the respondent be restrained from transferring or alienating the suit property in any manner to the third party till the final disposal of the suit and consequently, the respondent be restrained from causing any interference either by himself or through his agents, servants, etc. in petitioner's peaceful enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) On the line of relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, plaintiff has also prayed for interim relief in application as Exh. 5. It may be stated that the defendant has denied all the assertions of the plaintiff. It is say of the defendant that no such transaction has ever taken place and no consideration or part consideration is ever received by the respondent. The respondent does not dispute the execution of power of attorney. However, it is say of the respondent that the same was tampered with by the petitioner and thereby, attempt was made by the petitioner to show that beside the land which is referred in the said deed, it includes suit property also. It is also say of the defendant that reference and reliance on receipt of remaining part consideration i.e. Rs.7,000/is misleading.