IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 584 OF 2008. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 584 OF 2008. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 584 OF 2008. WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION APPLICATION APPLICATION No No No. 678 678 678 of of of 2008 2008 2008. Sunil Hemraj Bothra ..Appellant. V/s. Prakash Shrirang Adhav and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr A. P. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr Mahesh B. Pahane for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 17.07.2008. DATED: 17.07.2008. DATED: 17.07.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard both parties on the interim prayer of injunction. 2. Shri Mahesh B. Pahane, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 waives service. 3. The present appellant is claiming right on the basis of a registered sale deed executed on 7.5.2007, a copy of which is placed on record. The appellant has also produced certificate dated 6-5-07 issued by "Gojubavi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited" (Co-operative Society) showing a liability against the said property payable to the society by Ms Subhadra Shrirang Adhav, plaintiff No.3/respondent No.3. There is one more certificate issued by the same society dated 8.5.2008 showing satisfaction of the liability of the society. The society has issued "No Dues Certificate", dated 8.7.2005. The sale deed is registered between 6th and 8th May, 2007 i.e. on 7.5.2007. The amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deed was paid by cheque drawn in favour of the vendor. 4. It is, thus, clear that the sale deed is backed by consideration and the amount of consideration has been used to satisfy the liability of Co-operative Society described herein. It is, thus, clear that not only the sale deed of the subject-property was executed and the title was transferred but it was acted upon by the parties. It appears that immediately after the sale deed, the suit is filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on 29.5.2007. With the result, mutation could not take place in favour of the appellant-defendant. That was one of the ground held in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial Court for granting injunction. Thus, considering prima facie case made out by the appellant, the appellant would be entitled for interim relief. However, grant of interim relief as prayed might create difficulty in working out the equities in favour of the parties to the suit at the time of final disposal of the suit. Consequently, justice would be done by appointing the defendant as a receiver of the property. He shall remain in possession of the property as Court Receiver and shall maintain accounts of the income and expenditure in accordance with law during the pendency of appeal and shall submit it to the trial Court at the end of each agriculture year. He shall not part with possession or create any third party interest. He will only be entitled to cultivate and reap benefits and shall be entitled to appropriate its profits during the pendency of the suit subject to the final orders of the Trial Court in the suit. Order accordingly. 5. In view of disposal of appeal, Civil Application No. 678 of 2008 does not survive. The same is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE