1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 49/2010 Smt. Sumatidevi Marotrao Dhanwate ..versus.. Bharatiya Lok Kalyan and Gruha Samasya Niwaran Sanstha Ltd. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-== Mr. S.D.Khati, counsel for appellant. Mr. A.M.Kulkarni, counsel for respondent/caveator. C ORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 24th JUNE, 2010. Heard. 2) Refusal to clamp injunction restraining the defendant/purchaser from creating third party rights is assailed in the present appeal. 3) The plaintiff asserts, the housing society has no retainable title to deal with the Plot Nos. 65, 65A in favour of the Purchaser - respondent no. 2 - Sunil Bisen. It is contended that the Society and the plaintiff had an arrangement, in which 5 plots were retained by the plaintiff Smt. Sumantidevi, which also comprise ;of the plot Nos. 65 and 65A and the said plots could not have been sold by the society and thereafter the Nagpur 2 Improvement Trust, having executed a lease in favour of said Sunil Bisen, such exercise is also illegal. 4) The learned Judge has evaluated all these aspects from the several angularities by virtue of the documents and prima facie found that the society having a perfect title, entered into the transaction of sale with the purchaser Sunil Bisen for the plots, subject matter of the suit. The lease executed by the N.I.T., also was considered. 5) The counsel for the purchaser Sunil informs that the society after execution of the sale deed has changed its mind and the cause of the plaintiff is prosecuted. 6) Taking prima facie record, the learned Judge was justified in not clamping injunction. I do not see any interference to be caused in the order. The parties should be aware about the rigor of Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act. The appeal from order lacks merit. Dismissed. No costs. (K.U.Chandiwal) JUDGE. Rvjalit