1 ao-153.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 153 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10676 OF 2011 Kuldeepsing s/o Nagusing Thakur, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business & Agri., R/o. "Utsav", MIDC, Barshi Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. ...APPELLANT VERSUS Nandini w/o Gopal Briswasi, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Vrandawan Nivas, Thakare Chowk, Sai Booster Pump, Ambejogai Road, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur, & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Ajay Shinde, Advocate for appellant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 03-08-2011 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 98 of 2010. 2 ao-153.11 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, there was oral agreement on 06-11-2008. The appellant herein, was willing to purchase the property of the respondents herein. Accordingly, the property situated at village Akarwai, Taluka and District Latur was to be sold for consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- and out of the said amount, the appellant herein, paid Rs.10,51,000/- by cash and Rs.50,000/- by cheque drawn on I.C.I.C.I. Bank. Learned Counsel invited my attention to Page-9 Exhibit-A and submitted that, receipt has been given by the respondents and they have received Rs.10,51,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- by way of cheque towards the consideration and therefore, according to learned Counsel for the appellant herein, the respondents are required to be restrained from alienating/selling the suit property. He further submits that, the appellant is in possession of the suit property, that position is also not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, he would 3 ao-153.11 submit that, this Appeal from Order requires consideration. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the Counsel for the appellant. In Para-12 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has referred to the copy of the agreement to sell filed by the defendants. In the said agreement to sell, consideration amount which was agreed between the parties appears Rs.90,69,750/- and out of the said amount, Rs.10,51,000/- was paid by the plaintiff as an earnest amount to the defendants. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 09-03-2009. However, it further appears that the terms of the said agreement are not abide by the appellant. The trial Court in Para-13 has observed that, the appellant herein, did not approach the trial Court with clean hands disclosing the written agreement between the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was at pains to argue that, the copy of the agreement to sell which was placed on record by the defendants, is 4 ao-153.11 forged and bogus agreement to sell. However, such contention cannot be accepted at this stage. The trial Court to look into the said document during the trial and to see whether the agreement to sell is bogus and forged, as contended by the appellant. The fact remains that, the appellant herein, is relying upon the oral agreement to sell. The contention of the appellant that, he is in possession of the suit property, is also required to be accepted cautiously. Since if the parties are put in possession in pursuant to the agreement to sell, in that case, such agreement to sell is required to be registered. However, at this stage, this Court does not wish to express any opinion on merits since the suit is pending before the trial Court. Suffice it to say that, the trial Court has reached to the correct conclusion and reasonable and possible view has been taken by the trial Court. 4. In my opinion, interest of the appellant can very well be protected in view of the 5 ao-153.11 provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. No case is made out for interference. Appeal from Order as well as Civil Application stand dismissed. . Any observations made hereinabove are restricted only to dispose of the Appeal from Order and Civil Application and while deciding the suit, the trial Court should not get influenced either by the observations made by this Court in this order or observations made by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and order which is assailed in this Appeal from Order. . If it is otherwise possible for the trial Court, the trial Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, however, within one year from today. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11