PRALHAD JAGANATH JAWALE Vs. SITABAI CHANDER NIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for. the appellants in Appeal from Order No. 884 of 2010. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in Appeal from Order No. 884 of 2010. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Appeal from order No. 857 of 2010.1 have heard Mr. Uday Warunjikar, learned counsel who had requested that he should be heard on the legal question involved.

(2.) The Appeal from Order No. 884 of 2010 takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 4th December, 2009 passed by the learned trial Judge by which the application made by the appellants (the plaintiffs) at Exhibit - 61 for temporary injunction has been rejected. In Appeal from Order No. 857 of 2010, the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2009 by which the application made by the appellants-plaintiffs at Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction has been rejected.

(3.) These two appeals are taken up together for hearing as to admission as both involve the question of interpretation of the judgment of this Court in the case of Kachhi Properties, Satara vs. Ganpatrao Shankarrao Kadam, 2010 5 MhLJ 903. As far as Appeal from Order No. 857 of 2010 is concerned, the same will have to be admitted and ad interim relief will have to be continued. Therefore, I am dealing in detail only with the facts of the case in Appeal from Order No. 884 of 2010. The suit is filed by the appellants for declaration that compromise decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 379 of 1996 is void and that on the basis of the compromise decree, no rights have been acquired by the respondent Nos. 1 to 10. The second prayer is for perpetual injunction. The third prayer is for declaration that the possession of the appellants over the suit property has been protected by section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1882"). The appellants-plaintiffs are relying upon the sale-deed dated 27th April, 1998 obtained by them from the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 and the respondent No. 11. The appellants are placing reliance on a decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 155 of 1996 in which the respondent No. 11 was the plaintiff. It is a decree for specific performance directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein to execute a sale-deed in favour of the respondent No. 11. By the impugned order, the application at Exhibit 61 for temporary injunction made by the appellants has been rejected. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though there may have been an order of injunction operating against respondent Nos. 1 to 8 when they executed the sale deed dated 27th April, 1998, the respondent No. 11 was the title holder and therefore, the title has been passed to the appellants on the basis of sale deed dated 27th April, 1998. He submitted that only a limited interim relief of restraining the respondents from creating third party interests was sought, which ought to have been granted. His submission is that the decision in the case of Kachhi Properties (supra) does not lay down any proposition of law.