1 AO-1053-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1053 OF 2010 Mrs. Mamata Deepak Misal ... Appellant (Orig. defendant No.7) vs. M/s. Balaji Construction Co. & Ors. .. Respondents Ms. Manjiri S. Parasnis,Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sachin Gite,Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 18th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present Appeal is preferred by the original defendant No.7, who is the subsequent purchaser of the property. According to the plaintiff/respondent No.1, they had entered into a registered agreement for development of the suit property with the defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Full consideration was paid to the vendors and the consenting parties as per the agreement. Under the said agreement, not only the right of development, but also right to transfer the said property to third persons was also conferred on the plaintiff. The said document 2 AO-1053-10.sxw was duly registered in 1996. Besides the agreement, vendors had also executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of plaintiff. On 4.7.2007, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 executed the sale deed of the suit property in favour of defendant no.7. Before that, the plaintiff had issued a public notice against any such transaction and this was well within the knowledge of the defendant No.7. Inspite of that the defendant No.7 proceeded to purchase the property. In view of these circumstances, the plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.1735 of 2008 for specific performance of the contract for sale of the land as per the agreement of 1996. Therein, the plaintiff moved an application Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction. After hearing the parties, the trial Court by impugned order dated 4.5.2009 restrained the defendants from creating third party interest and from parting with possession of the property. That order is challenged in the present Appeal. 3. According to the defendant No.7/appellant, he is a bonafide purchaser because the earlier contract was terminated. According to them, there was an agreement for sale between the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the husband of defendant No.7 even before the plaintiff had entered into the said contract. 4. After hearing the parties and perusal of the documents, it appears that prima facie the defendant No.7 entered into contract with the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 AO-1053-10.sxw 5 with full knowledge of the earlier transaction with plantiff. Prima facie, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 6 had agreed to transfer their rights and had not only received full consideration, had also conferred the right of development and the right of sale of the property to third parties and also had executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, if the defendant No.7 is not restrained from creating third party interest in the property, it may create further complications and disputes. To avoid any such eventuality, the temporary injunction as granted by the trial court was absolutely necessary. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the said order. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)