AO/160/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 160 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6119 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 160 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= JAMNABEN BABUBHAI W/O SHANKARBHAI - Appellant(s) Versus RUCHI RESTAURANT PVT LTD & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SP HASURKAR for Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2 None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 11/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present Appeal from Order is filed by the appellants – original plaintiffs challenging the AO/160/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT judgment and order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.442 of 2006 in dismissing application Exh.5 in which the plaintiffs prayed for interim injunction restraining the respondents herein – original defendants from transferring and/or alienating land bearing Survey No.254 paiki T.P.Scheme No.1, Final Plot No.599, Plot No.56 admeasuring 466 Sq.Mtrs. and further restraining them from creating any third party rights. 2. The appellants – original plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 442 of 2006 to cancel sale deed dated 13.11.2006, declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that they are daughters of deceased Babubhai and in view of hereditary rights they become joint owners of suit property. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they are illiterate and by taking disadvantage the defendants got executed sale deed, which is without consideration. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defendants have not paid any amount of consideration and had given threat to make the signature on the documents and also given trust that the name of the plaintiffs would be entered in the suit property and thereafter the plaintiffs will get the amount of consideration of sale deed. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have got photo-copy of sale deed on 13.11.2006 and on getting the same, the plaintiffs got the knowledge AO/160/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT that the so called sale deed was executed illegally and it is without consideration and therefore, they preferred the aforesaid Suit. In the suit, they preferred application Exh.5 for restraining defendants, their servants from transferring, alienating and/or handing over possession, creating new rights and/or making any change in the position of the suit property. The learned trial Court by impugned order dated 28.03.2008 dismissed the said application Exh.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellants – original plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal from Order. 3. Mr.S.P.Hasurkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that defendants took disadvantage of illiteracy of the plaintiffs by giving threats; signature of the plaintiffs are obtained and sale deed have been executed. It is submitted that said sale deed is without consideration as except Rs.25,000/- no amount has been paid to the plaintiffs and therefore, learned trial Court ought to have allowed application Exh.5. 4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. It is required to be noted that sale deed is dated 13.11.2006 and suit came to be filed by the original plaintiffs on 19.12.2006 i.e. after a period of atleast one month and ten days. It is the contention of behalf of the plaintiffs that defendants have given threats; sale AO/160/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT deed came to be executed, in that case, the plaintiffs either ought to have filed criminal complaint or initiated proceedings before the appropriate Court/ forum and/or atleast should have served notice upon the defendants, purchasers immediately. It is required to be noted that plaintiffs had filed suit through power of attorney holder and said power of attorney is dated 13.12.2006 and in the said power of attorney there is no reference with respect to sale deed. It is also borne out that purchasers have paid an amount of Rs.51,000,00/- towards sale consideration and they are handed over possession of the suit property. It appears that there is some internal / inter-se dispute between the family members with respect to distribution of the aforesaid sale consideration. Therefore, suit came to be filed. It is also required to be noted that even it is admitted by the plaintiffs that they have received Rs.25,000/- and ought to have got Rs.1 lac each considering their share. Thus as stated above, there is internal dispute amongst the family members with respect to distribution of sale consideration for which purchasers should not be suffered. 5. Considering above, when the learned trial Court has dismissed application Exh.5, it cannot be said that the said order is illegal and/or perverse which requires to be interfered by this Court. No interference is called for. Hence, Appeal from Order is dismissed. In view of disposal of Appeal from AO/160/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT Order, no order in Civil Application. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish