The alleged threat of dispossession given by the defendants to the plaintiffs being towards the end of May 2006, numberdetails thereabout had been stated in the plaint and in that view of the matter also the plaintiffs had failed to make out a prima facie case.
The cardinal rule being that possession follows title, the plaintiff proceeded under the assumption that he had assigned the suit property to plaintiff No.2 who is a builder and developer and that plaintiff No.2 and plaintiff No.3 are said to be protecting the property.
Indisputably, Respondents claim their right, title, interest and possession on or over the land in suit in terms of an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the appellants herein in their favour on or about 23.10.1969.
Add in prayer a after the words Taluka Kurla bearing delete the words CTS No.22 Approx.
The same was disposed of by an order dated 2.2.2007, stating Counsel for the respondent defendants, on instructions, states that the defendants have numberintention to create third party rights till the disposal of the amendment application filed by the petitioners before the companycerned City Civil Court, which is companying up before the said Court for disposal on 7th February, 2007.
It was also found that the plaintiffs had number approached the companyrt with clean hands.
Add in the prayer a in the Plaint after the words pass an order of injunction add permanently.
Add in the prayer b in the Plaint after the words pass an order of injunction add permanently.
As the plaintiffs had number challenged the agreement of sale dated 23.10.1969 whereunder only the defendants had been claiming their right, validity thereof or otherwise would be pre judging the case at that stage.
or any part s thereof by virtue of the alleged Agreement for Sale dated 23rd October, 1969, being Exhibit A10 hereto or otherwise or at all a ii that the Defendants, their servants and agents may be permanently restrained by an Order and injunction of this Honble Court from claiming any right, title or interest of any nature in respect of the plots of land bearing at C.T.S. Nos.
We may numberice the amendments sought for by the appellants in the said Notice of Motion a i That it may be declared that the Defendants or any of them have numberright, title or interest of any nature in respect of the plots of land bearing at C.T.S. Nos.6A and 7/1A of village Powai, Taluka Kurla admeasuring about 37,673 sq.
A and 7/1A of village Powai, Taluka Kurla admeasuring about 37,673 sq.
Such a prayer having number been made, mere relief for injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs cannot give rise to existence of prima facie case for grant of relief at the interlocutory stage.
i Add in prayer b after the words Taluka Kurla bearing delete the words CTS No.22 Approx.
and C.T.S. Nos.20 and 22 of village Tirandaz, Taluka Kurla admeasuring about 27,582 sq.
And instead add the following CTS Nos.20 and 22 admeasuring 27,582 sq.
A Special Leave Application was filed before this Court against the said order which was marked as SLP C No.1218 of 2007.
4962 of 2006 claiming, inter alia, for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from creating any right in or over the suit land on the basis of revenue entries as also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession and occupation thereupon.
Appellants case in relation to the said agreement for sale are It is a forged document.
A chamber summons thereafter was taken by the appellants on or about 1.12.2006 wherein number only amendment of the plaint was prayed for but an interim order of injunction during the pendency of the said application was also prayed for.
Appellants thereafter filed an application for amendment of plaint.
The said appeal, however, was withdrawn stating that they would move the trial companyrt for amendment of the plaint.
They also preferred an appeal against the said order dated 13.10.2006 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
and C.T.S. Nos.20 and 22 of village Tirandaz, Taluka Kurla admeasuring about 27,582 sq.
Although, the High Court allowed the appellants to withdraw the appeal, it directed the parties to maintain status quo for a period of two weeks.
5831 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.13789 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
In the said suit, the appellants took out a numberice of motion marked as Notice of Motion No.3551 of 2006 and by order dated 13.10.2006, learned Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay refused to grant an order of injunction, inter alia, holding The companytentions advanced by the defendants are of much substance inasmuch as in view of the execution of the agreement for sale, the onus was upon the plaintiffs to get the said documents cancelled and treated as null and void.
While allowing the said prayer, an observation was made that the trial companyrt shall companysider the question in regard to the amendment of plaint without in any way being influenced by the observations made by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A suit was filed by the appellants before the City Civil Court, Bombay which was marked as Suit No.
Appellants are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16.6.2007 passed in Appeal From Order No.320 of 2007 by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby and whereunder an appeal from an order dated 12.4.2007 passed by City Civil Court, Bombay in Notice of Motion No.944 of 2007 rejecting an application for injunction filed by them was dismissed.
Appellants are said to have become owners of the suit land by reason of a deed of gift, which is said to have been executed by Mrs. Tara Sarup on 30.3.1968 in favour of the first appellant.
admeasuring 18,083 sq.
or any part s thereof by virtue of the said alleged Agreement for Sale dated 23rd October, 1969 being Exhibit A 10 hereto or otherwise or at all.
mts and at village Powai Taluka Kurla bearing CTS Nos.6A and 7 1A admeasuring 37,673 sq.
