ATLANTA LIMITED Vs. ANIL R. AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of the parties, the Notice of Motion is heard finally. The plaintiff, inter -alia, seeks a declaration that defendant No. 1 cannot claim any right in the suit land on the basis of an agreement for sale dated 27th July, 1989, along with three powers of attorney dated 9th August, 1989, a deed of conveyance dated 22nd February, 2007 and a deed of rectification dated 5th October, 2010. The plaintiff has also sought a permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from demolishing a compound wall of the suit property and encroaching and/or entering upon the suit land and/or putting up any construction or sign boards thereon and disturbing the plaintiff's possession in respect thereof. By this Notice of Motion, the plaintiff has sought the usual interim orders in such a suit.

(2.) THE suit was originally filed only against defendant No. 1. By an order dated 5th August, 2011, I observed that it was necessary to implead the vendors and/or their heirs through whom the plaintiff and the first defendant claim a right in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, amended the plaint by impleading defendant Nos. 2 to 28 who are the vendors and the heirs of the vendors. The vendors admit the execution of all the documents. They, however, support the plaintiff. In addition to what is submitted by Mr. Vashi, the vendors have also contended that the agreements upon which the first defendant relies, are not binding on them on the ground that they were obtained by misrepresentation and fraud. The case, in a nutshell, is this. The plaintiff claims to have acquired the suit property by a registered conveyance dated 1st February, 2011. Defendant No. 1 claims to have acquired rights under the agreement for sale dated 27th July, 1989, and the registered conveyance dated 22nd February, 2007 read with the deed of rectification dated 5th October, 2010. If the first defendant's documents are valid, the plaintiff could have acquired no interest in the property as his conveyance was subsequent to the first defendant's registered conveyance.

(3.) I would first consider whether the plaintiff or the first defendant is in possession of the property and whether the error in mentioning C.T.S. No. 675 instead of C.T.S. No. 62 was merely inadvertent. I have answered both the questions against the plaintiff. This is established by the facts which are common to both the issues.