1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4470 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.3224 OF 2007 Jitendra Damji Shah ...Plaintiff Vs. Rajendra Hansraj Pathak & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.D.J.Lulia for Plaintiff Mr.Rajiv Narula i/b. J.Maruna Asso., for Defendant No.1 Mr. A. Wandre Wala i/b. M/s. P. Metha & Mithi for Defendants 8 to 10. CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. The Plaintiff's suit is for declaration that the Deed of Conveyance dated 1st March, 1990 and MOU dated 10th November, 1994 are valid and subsisting, that the Plaintiff is the legal owner, for specific performance of the aforesaid MOU and for the consequent recovery of the possession of the suit properties. The Plaintiff entered into an unregistered agreement dated 21st November, 1985 upon a cash consideration of Rs.75,000/- with Defendants 1 and 2. Thereafter, they entered into an unregistered Conveyance Deed on 1st March, 1990, which remained unregistered until 2 3rd August, 2007. The Defendants 1 and 2 executed a letter of authority for withdrawal of an earlier suit being SC Suit No.7078 of 1982 and issued a possession letter to the Plaintiff upon cash consideration of Rs.5 lakhs, executed a power of attorney and an affidavit-cum-declaration on 7th March, 1990 and executed other MOUs on 10th November, 1994. Thereafter the Plaintiffs obtained ULC permission on 22nd February, 1994. 2. After the execution of such documents, all unregistered as claimed by the Plaintiff nothing further has been done until the Defendants 1 and 2 executed a conveyance in favour of Defendants 8 to 10 pursuant to a public notice issued on 11th May, 2006. A registered conveyance between these parties came to be executed on 20th December, 2006. 3. For want of registration of Plaintiff' s documents and since the Plaintiff cannot rely upon unregistered documents to prove that claim, none of the reliefs in the plaint can be granted. 4. It may be mentioned that certain anomalies in the Plaintiff's unregistered agreements dated 21st November, 1995 are sought to be shown by Defendants, but with which 3 this Court is not concerned, since the agreement as well as the subsequent conveyance remained unregistered until after rights in favour of Defendants 8 to 10 have been created by transfer of title under a registered conveyance. Consequently no primafacie case having been made out the Notice of Motion stands dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)