1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 66 OF 2009 Harichand Shyamrao Durge & 6 Ors. Vs. Murlidhar Namdeorao Durgekar & 3 Ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S. D. Deshpande Adv for appellants. Smt Harshada Prabhu Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 13 th NOVEMBER, 2009. Heard. This appeal has been preferred by original plaintiffs. 2. Plaintiffs are said to be the owners of the suit property. They had executed an agreement of development of sale with respondents/defendants. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they had obtained loan and there was no actual agreement of sale or development of the property. It is also the 2 contention of the plaintiffs that they had no right to sell the property because of the fact that the Government has placed embargo on the transfer of the property under the provision of Urban Land Ceiling Act. The plaintiffs contended that they have never handed over possession of the said property and they continued to be in possession and therefore sought an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. 3. Defendants had contended that they had entered into a contract of purchase of the property as well as an agreement for development of the suit property. It is their contention that they were put in possession of the suit property and they have therefore every right to develop the said land. Learned Judge of the trial Court had rejected the application holding that possession is of the respondents and they had a right to develop the land. Learned counsel for the appellants contended before me that there was no agreement actually to sell the land or to develope the land and the transaction is 3 one of loan. At this stage it is difficult to find out whether the transaction is of loan. It appears that the plaintiffs had executed two agreements of sale in favour of defendants. They had received the amount under those agreements of sale and subsequent to that they have even executed a registered agreement to develop the suit property. The said agreement to develop the suit property has been signed by all the plaintiffs together. Had this really been transaction of loan there was no need to enter into such a registered agreement of development. There are recitals in the agreement that possession has been handed over and since there is a registered agreement it is clear that plaintiffs had given right to the respondents to develop the said property. Learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and documents on record. I, therefore, see no substance in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. svk JUDGE