AO/113/2008 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 113 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4125 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 113 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 ? ========================================================= BARDOLI PRADESH KUTCHH KADVA PATIDAR SAMAJ - Appellant(s) Versus NITINBHAI GOPALBHAI RANA & 7 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AJ SHASTRI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR NV GANDHI for Respondent(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, 4, 8, MR AMIT CHAUDHARY for Respondent(s) : 3,5 - 7. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 02/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Present Appeal From Order is filed by the appellant herein – original plaintiff under Order XXXXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for quashing and setting aside the AO/113/2008 2/8 JUDGMENT impugned order dtd.29/2/2008 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli below application Ex.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 2006, by which the learned trial court has dismissed the application Ex.5 submitted by the appellant – plaintiff and refusing to grant interim injunction as prayed for. 2. The appellant herein – original plaintiff had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 2006 in the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli for specific performance of Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 as well as for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from transferring and/or alienating the suit property to third party in any manner whatsoever and further restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff till final disposal of the suit. 3. It appears that it is the case on behalf of the appellant – original plaintiff that Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 has been executed by the defendant No.1 with respect to the land in question as Power of Attorney Holder of all the co- owners – defendant Nos.2 to 18 and has also paid Rs.21,00,000 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs only) to the defendant No.1 out of the total consideration of AO/113/2008 3/8 JUDGMENT Rs.40,00,000 (Rupees Forty Lacs only) and further amount of Rs.25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) has been paid by the appellant on various dates in cash, some at the time of execution of the agreement and later on as and when further steps are taken. It was also further submitted that right from 2004, the appellant plaintiff was in possession of the land in question and was utilizing the same. In the said suit, the appellant submitted application Ex.5 for interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from transferring and/or alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever and creating third party interest. The said application was opposed by the defendants mainly defendant Nos.3, 10, 14, 15 and 16 by submitting that the plaintiff has no right to file present suit against the defendants, more particularly when the plaintiff had earlier filed one Civil Suit No. 96 of 2005 and the said Civil Suit was withdrawn unconditionally. It was also further submitted that even the so-called Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 has been executed by the defendant No.1 in his individual capacity and not as Power of Attorney Holder of all the co-owners, therefore, the same is not binding to the other co-owners. It was also further AO/113/2008 4/8 JUDGMENT submitted that the possession is never parted with and the same has never been handed over to the plaintiff, as alleged. Even application Ex.5 was also opposed by the original defendant No.1 denying the allegations and contentions in the plaint. Considering the rival contentions and the material on record, more particularly the so-called Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 produced at Mark 3/2 and considering the fact that the said so-called Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 has not been executed by the owners and the same has been executed by the defendant No.1 in his individual capacity and not as Power of Attorney Holder, the same is not binding to the other co-owners, and considering the same, the learned trial court dismissed the application Ex.5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dtd.29/2/2008 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bardoli below application Ex.5 in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 2006, the appellant – original plaintiff has preferred present Appeal From Order. 4. Mr.A.J. Shastri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – original plaintiff has heavily relied upon the Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 – Mark 3/2 alleged to have been executed by the defendant No.1. It is AO/113/2008 5/8 JUDGMENT submitted that even the payment made to the defendant No.1, has been mentioned in the Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 and all through out the defendant No.1 has posed himself as owner and Power of Attorney Holder of other owners before the various authorities and in various proceedings and therefore, the same is binding to the other co-owners. As the Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 – Mark 3/2 is executed by the defendant No.1 for himself and as a Power of Attorney Holder of other owners, it is submitted that substantial amount has been paid to the defendant No.1 and therefore, the learned trial court ought to have granted injunction as prayed for. It is also further submitted that even the Panchnama prepared by the Court Commissioner also shows the possession of the appellant – plaintiff and therefore, it is requested to allow the present Appeal From Order. 5. Present Appeal From Order is opposed by Mr.N.V. Gandhi learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr.Amit Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 7. It is submitted that as rightly held and observed by the learned trial court, the so-called Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 executed by the defendant No.1 is in his AO/113/2008 6/8 JUDGMENT individual capacity and not as Power of Attorney Holder of the owners and therefore, when the so-called Agreement- to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 is not executed by all the owners, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief much less the interim injunction as prayed for. Submitting accordingly, it is requested to dismiss the present Appeal From Order. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 7. At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant – plaintiff has heavily relied upon the alleged Agreement- to-sell dtd.1/6/2004 and the suit for specific performance is based upon the said Agreement-to-sale which is alleged to have been executed by the defendant No.1. It appears that the defendant No.1 is not the sole owner of the land in question. Initially there were other owners – defendant Nos.2 to 18 and thereafter the said land in question has been sub-plotted and it is reported that there are in all 75 co-owners. Considering document at Mark 3/2, it appears that the same is executed by the defendant No.1 in his individual capacity and not as Power of Attorney Holder of other owners i.e. defendant Nos.2 to 18 and/or others. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 is not the sole owner of the land in question and it is also not in dispute AO/113/2008 7/8 JUDGMENT that defendant Nos.2 to 18 were co-owners of the suit land and the defendant No.1 was not the Power of Attorney Holder of the other co-owners. Thus, the so- called Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004, on the basis of which the suit has been filed for specific performance of the Agreement-to-sell dtd.1/6/2004, is not executed by all the owners but the same has been executed by the defendant No.1 only that too in his individual capacity and therefore, the same is not binding to the other defendants – owners. It is also required to be noted and so observed in the impugned order that the suit qua defendant Nos.9, 12, 13, 17 and 18 have been abated while defendant Nos.5 to 8 and 11 have been deleted from the suit. Thus, suit qua most of the defendants – owners are either abated and/or deleted from the suit. Considering the above when the so-called Agreement-to- sell dtd.1/6/2004 is executed by the defendant No.1 only and not by other owners and considering the above when the learned trial court has dismissed the application Ex.5, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any error in refusing to grant interim injunction as prayed for. 8. Now so far as the possession aspect is concerned, it is to AO/113/2008 8/8 JUDGMENT be noted that even the original plaintiff in the application Ex.5 has not prayed for any injunction with respect to the possession. In light of the above, the Panchnama prepared by the Court Commissioner is not required to be considered, as there is no prayer by the appellant – original plaintiff with respect to the possession. 9. Considering the above, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any error in dismissing the application Ex.5 and not granting interim injunction as prayed for. 10.For the reasons aforesaid, present Appeal From Order deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. 11.In view of the dismissal of the main Appeal From Order, no orders in Civil Application No.4125 of 2008. [M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik