1 445.11-ao-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 445 OF 2011 Shri Subhash Babu Palshetkar and others. ... Appellants. V/s. Hariom Builders and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 459 OF 2011 M/s.Hariom Builders. ... Appellants. V/s. Shri Govind Moreshwar Patil and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 677 OF 2011 M/s.Om Shivam Developers. ... Appellants. V/s. The Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 676 OF 2011 M/s.Om Shivam Developers. ... Appellants. V/s. Mr.Govind Moreshwar Patil and others. ... Respondents. 2 445.11-ao-- CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 2nd December 2011. P.C. : In all these appeals, appellants are taking exception to the common order passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 24th March 2011 disposing of four different applications seeking interim order in Special Civil Suit Nos.672/2010, 615/2010, 423/2009 and 522/2010. All the suits are presented by the parties claiming their entitlement in respect of the land bearing Old Survey No. 252, Hissa No.2 having corresponding New Survey No.43, Hissa No.2 admeasuring 73 R. equivalent to 7,360 sq.meters situated at village Navghar, taluka and district- Thane. 2. Special Civil Suit No.615/2010 is presented by one Shri Subhash Palshetkar along seven others against M/s.Hariom Builders; M/s.Om Shivam Developers; and Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff No.1 therein claims his entitlement to the property on the basis of deed of conveyance executed by the original owners i.e. plaintiff Nos. 2 to 7 whereas plaintiff No.8 is confirming party to the transaction. According to the plaintiffs, on 24th October 2007, a deed of conveyance was executed and registered on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 transferring and assigning all rights in respect of the suit property in favour of plaintiff No.1 for consideration of Rs.50 lakh. The plaintiff No.8, in whose favour earlier transaction was entered into by the original owners, is a confirming party to the transaction. According to plaintiff No.1, he has tendered the amount to the original owners and is in exclusive possession of the suit property having right 3 445.11-ao-- to develop the same. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff received summons pertaining to Regular Civil Suit No.32/2009 which was presented by defendant No.1 in Suit No.615/2010 claiming a decree of declaration and injunction to the effect that defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the property and the defendants in said suit i.e. R.C.S.No.32/2009 did not have any right, title and entitlement in the suit property. The said suit was presented on 9th January 2009. According to the plaintiff in the said suit, who is defendant No.1 in the suit presented by Subhash Palshetkar i.e. Sp.C.S.No.615/2010, the agreement of sale was executed by the original owners on 19th May 2003 which was followed by the development agreement dated 18th October 2007 which came to be registered on 19th October 2007. The earlier deeds and documents were followed by execution of deed of conveyance dated 20th December 2007 which came to be registered on 14th November 2008. It is the contention of the plaintiff in R.C.S.No. 32/2009 that there was a power of attorney executed by the original owners on 19th May 2003. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff in Sp.C.S.No.615/2010 received one more summons in Special Civil Suit No.423/2009 presented by defendant No.2 in Sp.C.S.No. 615/2010, who is also one of the appellants before this Court. The plaintiff in the said suit claimed to have agreed to purchase the property on execution of agreement of sale/conveyance dated 18th September 2009 by the original owners. According to the said plaintiff, the said suit is prior in time than Sp.C.S.No.615/2010. The consideration prescribed in the agreement is Rs.33,00,000/-. However, according to the plaintiff in Sp.C.S.No.423/2009, in spite of execution of agreement in his favour, the original owners proceeded to execute sale-deed in favour of Shri Subhash Babu Palshetkar i.e. plaintiff No.1 4 445.11-ao-- in Sp.C.S.No.615/2010. The plaintiff in Sp.C.S.No.423/2009 also claimed right, title and entitlement in respect of the suit property. All the plaintiffs in different suits claim that they have tendered valuable amount of consideration to the original owners and are put in possession of the property. Thus, in short, all the plaintiffs in all three suits claim their possession over the suit property on the basis of different documents executed by the original owners i.e. plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 in Sp.C.S.No.615/2010. There were different applications presented in all the suits claiming prohibitory order of injunction against the rival parties which were heard and disposed of by the trial Court and by impugned order the trial Court rejected all the applications. 3. Turning to M/s.Hariom Builders i.e. plaintiff in R.C.S.No. 32/2009, it is pleaded by the plaintiff that entire consideration amount of Rs.34,33,170/- was paid by the plaintiff to the original owners. There are receipts in respect of payment of consideration amount. The bank statement placed on record is also produced to show passing of consideration amount. The original owners, who have presented Special Civil Suit No.615/2010 along with Shri Subhash Babu Palshetkar have alleged non-execution of documents pertaining to the year 2007 and 2008 in favour of plaintiff in R.C.S.No.32/2009 i.e. M/s.Hariom Builders. The documents such as development agreement and deed of conveyance are executed on the basis of alleged power of attorney dated 19th May 2003 by the power of attorney holder. The original owners disowned these transactions and contended that the plaintiff in R.C.S.No.32/2009 has played fraud in securing the document. The trial Court did not find favour with the case put up by 5 445.11-ao-- the plaintiff in R.C.S.No.32/2009. So far as transaction entered into in favour of Shri Subhash Babu Palshetkar is although supported by the original owners, it appears that there were earlier transactions entered into by the original owners and they agreed to alienate the property by executing documents in favour of the plaintiffs in other suits. The agreement to sale in favour of plaintiff in R.C.S.No.32/2009 was executed way back in the year 2003 whereas another agreement to sale/ conveyance was executed in favour of the plaintiff in Sp.C.S.No. 423/2009 on 18th September 2008 i.e. prior to the date of execution of conveyance in favour of plaintiff No.1 in Sp.C.S.No.615/2010. 4. My attention is invited by the counsel appearing for the appellants in Appeal from Order No.445/2011 to the observation made by learned trial Judge in the judgment to the effect that there is no evidence in respect of payment of consideration amounting to Rs.50 lakh in favour of the original owners and it is submitted that the observation is against the record. The receipts in respect of payment are placed on record which are part of registered document. Compilation of document was made available for perusal. It is submitted that the observation made by learned trial Judge in paragraph-29 of the judgment appears to be erroneous. However, the fact remains that the original owners have executed different documents in favour of the plaintiffs in R.C.S.No.32/2009 and Sp.C.S.No.423/2009, which are prior in time, for creating interest in their favour. Thus, taking into consideration all these circumstances, the trial Court came to the conclusion that none of the parties have approached the Court with clean hands and have not disclosed the true facts. In the circumstances enumerated in the judgment, the trial 6 445.11-ao-- Court has drawn conclusion that none of the plaintiffs/ appellants herein are entitled to claim equitable relief of injunction in the matters. 5. The plaintiff in R.C.S.No.32/2009 placing reliance on the order passed by the Commissioner, Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation contended that the possession of the plaintiff in the said suit is established and the Corporation has also granted permission for development. It is also contended that the plaintiff in the said suit has invested huge amount and started development work of the property and the same should not be stopped. However, taking into consideration peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be difficult to accept the request made by the plaintiff in the said case. In my opinion, the ends of justice would be met by directing the trial Court to decide all the suits i.e. Special Civil Suit No.672/2010, 615/2010, 423/2009 and 522/2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within one year from the date of receipt of writ of this order. All the parties to the litigations, in the meanwhile, shall maintain status-quo in respect of the property and shall not create any further interest in relation to the suit property. 6. With the aforesaid directions, all the four appeals from order stand disposed of. In view disposal of appeals from order, pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)