1 AO 62-09 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.62 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.76 OF 2009 Bhausaheb Govind Waghchore & ors .Appellants V/s. Dashrath Mukund Gaikwad & ors .Respondents Mr.Sandeep Shinde, Advocate, for the Appellants None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. . This Appeal is directed against an order dated 3rd October, 2007 passed by the learned judge, Civil Court, Senior Division, Nashik below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.432 of 2007, whereby he restrained the Appellants/original Defendants from creating any third party interest in the property and disturbing plaintiffs' possession over the suit property. 2 AO 62-09 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellants may be right in submitting that if the consideration agreed to in the Earnest Note dated 7th February, 2006 was Rs.33,60,000/- and if the Plaintiffs have claimed to have paid Rs.20,000,00/-, subsequent registered Agreement of sale dated 10th February, 2006 could not have mentioned that the price agreed between the parties was only Rs.9,85,000/- which according to him, was done only to evade stamp duty. But that does not make the consideration unlawful or defeat provisions of law. The word consideration for the purpose of Agreement is different from term consideration used in Section 23 of the Contract Act. Both the Agreements recite that possession had been handed over to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, merely because consideration was recorded as Rs.9,85,000/- in the Agreement of sale deed dated 10th February, 2006, it does not follow that the 3 AO 62-09 consideration was hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act. Both the Agreements recite that possession had been handed over to the Plaintiff. Both the Agreements show that there was an Agreement on the part of the Appellants/original Defendants to sell the property to the Plaintiffs. If there is any dispute about the consideration agreed, that can always be decided in the suit. Since it is not the case of the Appellants that they were under any compulsion to execute registered Agreement of sale which they signed and registered, they can not be heard to say that they had not agreed to sell the property or had not placed the Plaintiffs in possession thereof. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned Judge erred in granting injunction. 3. Appeal from Order is, therefore, dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of Appeal from 4 AO 62-09 Order, Civil Application No.76 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)