NANDLAL HAKIKATRAI MOTWANI Vs. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMKISANJI SARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the appellants (original plaintiffs) are seeking injunction against respondents (original defendants), their agents, servants and all other persons claiming through or under them, restraining them from transferring, alienating, selling or leasing the suit property as mentioned in the judgment dtd. 28/9/2021 passed in Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2013 by learned 5th Jt.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola, in favour of anyone else during the pendency of the instant appeal.

(2.) Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 herein being the owner of property bearing Nazul Plot No.1-2/98 and 1-2/99, Nazul Sheet No.99, original Layout Plots No.1 and 2 made out of lay out of field survey No.49, Village Umri, Taluka and District Akola admesuring about 11511.048 Sq.Ft.(hereinafter referred to as the suit property), agreed to sale the suit property to the appellants/original plaintiffs as per the agreement for sale dtd. 13/09/2010. The appellants/original plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000.00 towards part payment of consideration and remaining amount was agreed to be paid on the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 9/3/2011. According to the appellants/original plaintiffs, respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had obtained loan from respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank by mortgaging the suit property and also had agreed to repay loan amount and bring no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant No.2-Bank before execution of sale deed.

(3.) According to the appellants/original plaintiffs they were and are ready and willing to pay and get the sale deed executed. Even they requested respondent No.1/ defendant No.1, his representative, and estate broker to get suit property measured and to bring no due certificate from the Bank, however, they failed to get suit property measured and also to bring no due certificate from respondent No.2/defendant-2 Bank. On the contrary, the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 informed about the cancellation of agreement as the balance consideration was not paid on 9/3/2011 and also proposed to refund earnest amount. Appellants/original plaintiffs accordingly, filed the suit.