JAYANTIBHAI MAFATBHAI PATEL Vs. DILIPBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the original defendants No.2 to 4 of Special Civil Suit No.41/2006, which is filed by the plaintiff against them as well as against respondent No.2 Vikrambhai Chimanbhai Patel for specific performance of the suit agreement as well for revocation of the registered sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 is the owner of the property situated at Dascroi taluka of Ahmedabad district, bearing survey no.280, admeasuring 5868 sq.mtrs. Defendant no.1 had agreed to sale the aforesaid land and for that an agreement to sale was executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.4.50 lacs and said agreement to sale was executed on 22nd January, 2004, which was ultimately notarized on 30th April, 2004. As per the said agreement, the sale deed was to be executed within 36 months and at the time of executing said document, the plaintiff had paid Rs.1 Lacs by cash to defendant no.1. It is mentioned in the plaint that said part consideration of Rs.1 Lac was paid in cash by various installments. Defendant no.1, thereafter, executed a sale deed in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 for Rs.17,60,500/- which is a registered sale deed. According to plaintiff, defendant no.1 should not have sold that property to defendants no.2 to 4 by ignoring the agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, suit is filed for specific performance of suit agreement and it is prayed that the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 also may be revoked. In the said suit, permanent injunction was prayed for by restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating or dealing with the suit property in any manner. In the said suit, the original plaintiff has also submitted an application at Exh.5 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating or dealing with the suit property in any manner till the final disposal of the suit.

(3.) The appellants, who are original defendants no.2 to 4, resisted the said suit on various grounds. It is the case of the aforesaid defendants that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice and that they have paid full consideration by cheques. It is their case that they have developed the land and they have constructed about twelve bungalows. Said defendants have also produced development permission, which was granted by the authority in their favour. It is also their case, that even before executing the sale deed, registered Banakhat was also executed by defendant no.1 in their favour. It is also their case that prior to execution of sale deed in question, public notice was also given by them through their advocate on 29-3-2005, whereby objections were invited in connection with that transaction. Such public notice is in compilation at page No.66. It is also the case of defendants no.2 to 4 (the purchasers of the land in question) that the plaintiff and defendant no.1 have colluded with each other in order to get out from the registered sale deed which is executed by the original owner in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 and, therefore, with the help of original owner the plaintiff has filed aforesaid suit.