: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.987 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.987 OF 2003 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.987 OF 2003 IN IN IN S.C.SUIT NO.74 OF 2002 S.C.SUIT NO.74 OF 2002 S.C.SUIT NO.74 OF 2002 Siddhivinayak Oudyogik Vasahat ).. Appellant versus Gangaram Rama Jadhav and others ).. Respondents Mr.R.M.Hardas with Mr.P.J.Joshi for the Appellant. Mr.R.A.Thorat with Mr.M.M.Sathaye for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 2ND NOVEMBER 2004 DATED: 2ND NOVEMBER 2004 DATED: 2ND NOVEMBER 2004 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : . The Appellant who is the Plaintiff before the trial Court had sought specific performance of an agreement dated 15th August 1990. The trial Court has refused temporary injunction which the Appellant had sought for. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Defendants are the owners of land admeasuring 41 hectares and 10 ares. The trial Court has concluded that the agreement of 15th August 1990 on which basis the suit has been filed is unregistered and not properly stamped. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Thorat appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the document of 15th August 1990 cannot constitute agreement as it is not been signed by the Appellant. At best this document may be : 2 : declaration signed by the Defendants but it cannot prima facie constitute agreement. Therefore, in my view, temporary injunction sought on the basis of such document which according to the Plaintiff is agreement of sale, cannot be granted. 2. In view of the above, Appeal dismissed. 3. In view of the disposal of the Appeal From Order, nothing survives in Civil Application No.1418 of 2003 and the same is disposed of accordingly.