1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3281 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1787 OF 2007 Pandurang Laxman Bhandari ....Plaintiff V/s. Bhawarlal T Sharma ....Defendant Mr.H.S. Shreepad Murthy, for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed for a declaration that the agreement dated 3rd November,2001 and the annexures thereto are not valid, not voluntarily entered into, not enforceable and for the cancellation thereof. The plaintiff has also sought an order for possession of the suit flat. 2. According to plaintiff he met the defendant in or about year 2000-2001 and treated him with respect as a religious person. The plaintiff was at that time constructing a building. Considering the nature of the relationships between the parties, the plaintiff claims to have permitted the defendant to take possession of the suit flat pending the plaintiff obtaining an occupation certificate. 3. Mr.H.S. Shreepad Murthy, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the occupation certificate has still not been 2 obtained. However, other flats have been occupied by the respective flat purchasers who have also formed a society. The Plaintiff came to know from the society that the defendant had purport to register an agreement by an alleged deed of confirmation dated 3rd May, 2006. The deed of confirmation is unilateral. It is executed only by the defendant. It purports to register the alleged agreement between the parties dated 3rd November, 2001. The Plaintiff admits his signature on the agreement. He admitted his initials on each page. He submits, however that the defendant obtained the set of documents illegally from his office in view of the trust reposed in him by the plaintiff. 4. In view of the relationship between the parties the defendant had easy access to the plaintiff’s office and the records therein. The plaintiff used to leave the documents signed in blank for convenience. The consideration is not mentioned in the agreement. The receipt clause is also not signed. However, to the agreement dated 3rd May,2006, is annexed a letter allegedly written by the plaintiff to the defendant. The date is not clear from the xerox copy, tendered in the Court. The letter reads as under: “I, Shri.Pandurang Laxman Bhandari do hereby donate to you my flat bearing flat No.703, on 7th floor in B wing of SukhShanti Apartment at T.P., Chiuwadi, Shimpoli, Borivali (W), Mumbai 92, for the purpose of 3 Kirtan, jap, Tap, Pooja and other religious spiritual and magic activities to be performed under your leadership. Kindly accept my offering and oblige” 5. The defendant did not appear despite being served. No affidavit in reply has been filed. It is, however, not possible at this stage to dispossess the defendant. The occupation certificate is still not obtained. The question whether the said letter which is quoted above is genuine or not is still to be decided. The defendant was admittedly handed over possession of the said flat in the year 2001. 6. In the circumstances, ends of justice would met by the following order. ORDER. I) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendant shall not sell, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party interest in respect of suit flat. II) The defendant shall use the said flat only for the purpose mentioned in the said letter quoted above. For the said purpose, the defendant is at liberty to apply to this Court to fix the time for carrying out the said religious activities. It will be open to the plaintiff to make an application for directions regarding any offerings monetary or in kind that may be made by the devotees. III) The plaintiff is at liberty to serve copy of this order on the society.