KOMALBAI Vs. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred by the original defendants, challenging the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge - 1, Nilanga, District Latur, dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal No.33/2009 filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga, allowing Exh.5, application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.46/2009. Both the Courts below have held that prima facie plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit property and prima facie case was also made out for grant of relief of specific performance of contract i.e. agreement dated 25.6.1998 for reconveyance of the property. Hence, this writ petition is preferred by the original defendants.

(2.) Notice in this matter was issued on 14th December, 2009. On 12th April, 2010. this Court had made it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Thereafter, again the matter was adjourned on 14th June, 2010 as none appeared for the respondents. It was adjourned by way of last chance. Accordingly, the matter is listed today. Smt. Madhaveshwari Thube-Mhase, the learned counsel appears for the petitioners whereas Shri. N. N. Shinde, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos.l to 3. Rule. Shri. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 3 waives service of notice. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(3.) The facts which are not in dispute are that by registered sale-deed dated 23rd of May, 1996, the plaintiffs purchased the suit property for consideration of Rs.50,000/-. On 4.5.1998 the defendant No. 1, by registered sale-deed purchased the suit property from the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.46/2009 which is pending in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga. It is the suit for specific performance of contract dated 25.6.1998 for reconveyance of the property by the defendants in favour of plaintiff No. 1. It is alleged that the sale dated 4.5.1998 in favour of defendants was nominal one and it was a loan transaction with understanding that the property shall be reconveyed upon payment of loan amount with interest. Although on 4.5.1998 there was no such agreement of reconveyance executed nor such was the recitals in the said sale-deed, iris alleged that on 25.6.1998 such an agreement was executed and accordingly the plaintiffs had shown their readiness and willingness to pay the amount due and payable. Since the defendants refused to reconvey the property, Regular Civil Suit No.46/2009 was filed.