1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 17. AO/3/2009 With CA/421/2009 In AO/3/2009 (Sow.Kusum w/o Sarjerao Maghade vs. Annasaheb s/o Deorao Gunjal and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. Raju D.Bhalerao, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. S.K.Shinde, Adv., for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 served. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:22/1/2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Counsel extensively. The matter is heard finally. This is defendant's appeal. 2. The plaintiff asserted rights based on agreement of sale dt. 21.3.2003/22.11.2003, in respect of the property belonging to the defendant/appellant herein. 3. Appellant disputes having entered into agreement of sale with the defendant. During the 2 course of submissions, it is pointed out, there could not be any agreement of sale validly executed by the appellant since there was prohibition recorded in the revenue record in 7/12 which has been subsequently deleted by mutation entry No.3064. 4. The Counsel for the appellant (defendant) contemplates, the finding of the learned Judge in relation to execution of the document itself is erroneous, not in context with the written statement filed and record. He urged that it should be corrected. The Counsel submits that the property belongs to the appellant, and as the owners, they are legally entitled to deal with the same in the manner they deem fit and, particularly the appellant herein being aged, they need disposal of the property on peremptory basis to meet some expenses. 5. The Counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) submits, the matter 3 of stay by Revenue Authorities for transfer having came to the knowledge, the parties agreed to get the transaction completed thereafter and, therefore, there are two different dates in the agreement; dt.21.3.2003 and 22.11.2003. 6. In order to criticize the conduct of the defendant (appellant), the Counsel submits, from the very land a small piece 60 R. is sold by the appellant to one Gorakshnath and this also adds fuel to the difficulties of the appellant and, consequently, according to Mr.Shinde, it is imperative to clamp injunction which the learned Judge has rightly done. 7. At this stage of the matter, though the appellant herein has denied in the pleadings that there was no agreement of sale, the fact remains, such eventuality can only be rebutted or established on evidence. The conduct of the appellant of selling the property 4 to the extent of 60 R. being owner, though demonstrated, also answers that in the event of any need, it has so been complied with. Consequently, even at this stage, no emergent need for the appellant to dispose of the property, subject matter of the suit could be seen. The contention as to clamping of injunction or document is unregistered need not be adverted to, as there is no bar in law for an agreement without getting it registered. The hurdle created by recording revenue entry having been lift, as deleted by mutation entry no.3064, such bar, prima facie, will not be available to be coined. 8. Taking survey of the factual details, it is apparent, clamping of injunction against the appellant, by itself, will not be causing any inconvenience or irreparable loss to the appellant/defendant. On the contrary, it will avoid multiplicity of the litigation. 5 The parties should not be oblivious to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which also lays down the contingencies. Taking these aspects into consideration, the appeal sans merit. It is dismissed. Civil Application also disposed of. 9. The parties will endeavour to get the matter disposed of at the earliest. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3-09ao