- 1 - 904.nms.1058.11 s.761.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1058 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO. 761 OF 2011 Rajnikant H. Mehta & 2 Ors. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- Parag R. Kotadia & 67 Ors. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Rajiv Narula i/b Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER 2011. P.C. 1 The defendants are absent though served. The defendants were absent even yesterday though the matter was called twice. 2 The suit is filed for a declaration that conveyances dated 16th April 2007, 4th September 2007, 28th June 2007 and 29th June 2007 are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for cancellation thereof. The plaintiffs have also sought an order cancelling the said documents. The plaintiffs have further sought a declaration that certain agreements entered into by them are valid, subsisting and binding on the parties. According to the plaintiffs, - 2 - 904.nms.1058.11 s.761.11 defendant nos.2 to 65 are the heirs of the original owner one Kana Rama Bhandari, who died on 18th March 1969. The deceased had four sons who entered into a development agreement dated 7th May 1986 with one Anantrai Seth and one Ghewarchand Jogani. It is alleged that by a deed dated 14th January 1991 Jogani relinquished his rights under the agreement to the said Anantrai Sheth. Said Anantrai Sheth vide agreement dated 22nd December 1993 transferred his rights to defendant no.1. It is also alleged that defendant no.67 acquired certain rights from various members of the Bhandari family. 3 By an agreement dated 27th June 1995 the defendant no.1 sold his interest in the property to the plaintiffs. The sale deed dated 6th July 1995 was executed by defendant nos.2, 6 and 10 to 14 in favour of the plaintiff. The same was registered. 4 The plaintiff’s grievance is that despite the above agreements, the impugned documents were executed. 5 The plaintiffs have also alleged that the defendants are not bona fide purchasers without notice. There is no affidavit-in-reply. The defendants have remained absent throughout. It is difficult therefore to disbelieve the averments and submissions made by the plaintiffs. - 3 - 904.nms.1058.11 s.761.11 6 In the circumstances, the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) except the words ‘dealing in’ bracketed in blue ink and prayer (b). No order as to costs. -