- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION No. 3049 OF 2007 IN SUIT No. 2258 OF 2007 M/s. United Corporation ... Plaintiff Vs. Dattatray Devrao Patil & Ors. ... Defendants *** Mr. T. G. Vora i/b M/s. Tamhane & Co., for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. *** CORAM : S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2009. PC :- 1. The suit is filed for a declaration that agreement for development/sale dated 27th September 1994 between defendant Nos. 1 to 7 on the one hand and defendant Nos. 8 and 9 on the other and agreements dated 3rd December 1994 and 24th December 1994 between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 8 and 9 is valid, subsisting and binding and for a decree for specific performance, directing each of the defendants to perform their obligations under the said agreements. 2. By this Notice of Motion, the plaintiff seeks the appointment of a Court Receiver and an injunction restraining the - 2 - defendants from disposing of, alienating, encumbering or creating third party rights in respect of the suit property. 3. I am not inclined to pass any order appointing a Court Receiver as the plaintiff’s case is that they are in possession of the suit property. This is stated more than once and quite clearly in the plaint itself. If that be so, there is no question of appointing a Court Receiver of the suit property. If the plaintiffs were dispossessed subsequently that is another matter. The plaintiff can always take out a fresh Notice of Motion for appropriate relief in that event. 4. The plaintiff’s right warrants protection by grant of injunction. By two separate agreements for sale cum Development dated 27th September 1994, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 agreed to sell the suit property to defendant Nos. 8 and 9. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the plaint that both original agreements are lying in the custody of defendant No. 8 in good faith. It is further stated in the said paragraph that upon the execution of the said agreement, defendant Nos. 8 and 9 were put in possession of the suit property. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint that defendant Nos. 8 and 9 under the said agreement dated 27th September 1994 were entitled to assign and sell their rights in favour of third parties. Both the agreements dated 27th September 1994 have not been produced. There is no affidavit-in-reply. I, therefore, proceed on the basis that what is stated in the plaint is correct. 5. According to the plaintiff, subsequently defendant Nos. 8 and 9 by the agreements dated 3rd September 1994 and 24th - 3 - September 1994 assigned all their rights under the agreement dated 27th September 1994 to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.75,78,685/-. The amount included the consideration payable by defendant Nos. 8 and 9 to defendant Nos. 1 to 7 under the agreement dated 27th September 1994. The plaintiffs paid the entire consideration under the agreement dated 3rd September 1994, 24th December 1994 to defendant Nos. 8 and 9. This included the payment made to defendant Nos. 1 to 7 on behalf of defendant Nos. 8 and 9. 6. In paragraph 12 of the plaint, it is stated that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 executed declarations dated 25th March 1995 and 8th April 2004 confirming the sale and the agreements executed in favour of defendant Nos. 8 and 9 and the plaintiff in respect of the suit property (Exhibits “F” and “F1” to the plaint). 7. Prima-facie therefore, it appears that the plaintiffs are entitled to protection of the rights under the agreements. 8. In the circumstances, the prayer for the appointment of a Court Receiver is rejected with liberty as aforesaid. . The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (b) and (c). However, as far as prayer (c) is concerned, defendant Nos. 8 and 9 shall deposit the same with the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Liberty to the parties thereafter to apply in respect thereof. Prayer (c) shall be complied with within six weeks from today. - 4 - . The Notice of Motion is disposed of in above terms.