GYANPRAKASH RAMGULAM PANDEY Vs. CHANDRABAI C. SUGANDH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the appellant/plaintiff whose notice of motion no. 416 of 2020 for a relief of temporary injunction that he be not dispossessed without following due process of law by the respondents-defendants, stands dismissed by the impugned order dated 5 March 2020 passed by the Adhoc City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit in question (Suit No. 273 of 2020) praying for a relief of permanent injunction against respondents/defendants that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises by trespassing in any manner whatsoever. This is the only substantive relief as prayed for in the suit as seen from the prayer clause (a) of the plaint.

(3.) The foundation of the appellant/plaintiff's case before the trial Court was that respondent no. 1-Smt. Chandrabai C. Sugandh (for short 'Chandrabai') the owner of the suit premises being "Shop no. 16, Aquarius Taurus CHSL, Survey No. 263, CTS No. 873, Jankalyan Nagar, Marve Road, Malvani, Malad (W), Mumbai-400095", having entered into a transfer agreement dated 29 June 2000 with the deceased father of the appellant/plaintiff late Shri. Ramgulam Pandey for sale of the said premises for total consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/-. He stated that part payment of Rs. 40,000/- as set out in the agreement was made to Chandrabai. The appellant/plaintiff contended that respondent no. 1 owner-Chandrabai did not come forward for registration of the said agreement and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff's father took steps by executing a self declaration dated 29 November 2011 on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- annexing therewith the transfer agreement dated 29 June 2000 and got registered the said self declaration with the Registrar of Sub-assurances on 29 November 2011. It was contended that alongwith the said Self-Declaration extracts/copies of the bank passbook of the year 2008 which showed that the further consideration came to be paid by the appellant/plaintiff's father to the owner-Chandrabai were also enclosed. The appellant/plaintiff contended that this is how the agreement dated 29 June 2000 was a registered agreement for transfer of the suit premises in his father's favour. The appellant/plaintiff hence had substantive rights on the suit premises including possessory rights and hence, any third party trying to take any action to dispossess the appellant/plaintiff was required to be temporarily injuncted by the Court as prayed for in the Notice of Motion filed for interim reliefs.