{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.157 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10680 OF 2011 Prakash Fakira Sonawane Appellant Versus Nimba Bhanudas Patil Respondent Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate for the appellant. Mr.B.S.Shinde, advocate for respondent CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. DATE : 19 th September, 2011 PER COURT: 1 Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2 Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the registered agreement to sell, which is placed on record at page 7 of the compilation of Civil Application. He submits that the agreement to sell is duly registered. He has paid Rs.3990/- towards registration charges and paid stamp duty of Rs. 15,000/-. He further submits that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- is paid as earnest money. It is further submitted that the Respondent, who is defendant in the suit, admits execution of agreement to sell. The only defence taken is that it is a money lending transaction. Learned Counsel further submits that the suit was instituted on 03.05.2011. However, there is letter written {2} by the defendant dated 15.02.2011 showing willingness to repay the amount. It is submitted that the trial Court, believing the words of the defendant, has refused to grant injunction. He further submits that though the property is mortgaged with the Bank, the appellant/plaintiff is asking injunction against the defendant, so that he should not create further third party rights in the suit property or encumbrances on the said property. Learned Counsel has also invited my attention to the written statement filed by the defendant where he admits such execution of registered agreement to sell in favour of the appellant. Therefore, relying upon the grounds stated in the Appeal from Order, averments made in the Civil Application and the registered agreement to sell, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that this Appeal from Order deserves to be allowed. 3 Learned Counsel for the original defendant - Respondent herein has invited my attention to the written statement filed before the trial Court and submitted that an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was borrowed from the appellant. It was agreed between the parties before the panchas that amount of Rs. 90,000/- will be paid towards interest on such loan amount. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent, such execution of document is a nominal transaction. It is further submitted that no case was made out before the trial Court that the defendants are likely to create third party rights in the suit {3} property. Therefore, the trial Court, in the concluding paragraph, has rightly observed that the plaintiffs have not made out a case that defendants are likely to create third party rights in the suit property. Learned Counsel also invited my attention to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order and submitted that possession of the property is with the defendant and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly refused to entertain the application for injunction. Therefore, this Court may not interfere. 4 I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for respective parties. It is not in dispute that permission from the Collector was not obtained before execution of agreement to sell. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that even subsequently, such permission can be obtained from the authority, however, in my opinion, that matter is for the trial. So far as making out prima facie case is concerned, the trial Court, in paragraphs 12 and 14 of the impugned order, has observed that the suit property is already mortgaged by the defendant in favour of the Union Bank of India and name of the Bank was entered in 7/12 extract of the suit land. It is not in dispute that the suit land is mortgaged by the defendant in favour of the Bank prior to execution of registered agreement to sell. Therefore, the trial Court, taking into consideration rival contentions and evidence brought on record, has taken a {4} reasonable and correct view. In my opinion, no case is made out for interference. 5 This Appeal from Order along with Civil Application stand rejected. S.S.SHINDE JUDGE adb/ao15711