ANNAPPA MARUTI ZALKE Vs. RAMU BALAPPA BOGARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order dtd. 24/6/2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Gadhinglaj, in MCA No. 19 of 2016, whereby the Appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant came to be allowed setting aside the order on the Application for temporary injunction (Exhibit '5') passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadhinglaj, restraining the defendant from causing obstruction to the possession of, and cultivation by, the plaintiff of the suit land till the final disposal of the suit.

(2.) Briefly stated the background facts are as under:

(3.) Mr. Redekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the learned District Judge was not at all justified in interfering with a reasoned discretionary order passed by the Trial Court, in exercise of limited appellate jurisdiction. The learned District Judge completely misconstrued the scope of the provisions contained in Sec. 49 of the Indian Registration Act 1908 ('the Registration Act'). An Agreement for Sale is not required to be compulsorily registered. The decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (Supra) was in respect of unregistered documents whereunder the title was conveyed. In the case at hand, the plaintiff was seeking specific performance of the Agreement for Sale. Thus, the learned District Judge committed a gross error in applying the ratio in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries (Supra) to the facts of the case at hand.