1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Appeal From Order No.633 of 2009 IN Notice of Motion No.Ex.5 of 2008 IN Suit No.1685 of 2008 Smt.Manjula Ashok Vora & anr. ... Appellants / Orig.Plffs. V/s. Smt.Jayshree S. Vora & ors. ... Respondents / Orig. Defts. Mr.Nitin Gangal i/by Mrs.Ankita Rele for Appellants. Mr.Sachin V. Salye i/by M/s.Sai & Co. for Res.No.4. Mr.Anil K. Lulla for Res.Nos.1 & 2. ------ CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 17th February, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Plaintiffs in the Suit who are the Appellants herein have sought an injunction restraining the suit property which is a flat being handed over in possession upon an auction sale to the auction purchaser. Respondent No.4 is the Bank, who has auctioned the property since 15.1.2008. The sale certificate has been issued upon the sale being 2 confirmed and has been registered. The amount of the auction sale has been deposited with the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Only the possession of the suit flat has to be handed over to the auction purchaser. The Suit filed by the Appellants herein is for injunction restraining the Society in which the flat is situated from transferring the membership of the suit flat and against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Suit from preventing the Plaintiffs from using and occupying the suit flat. The claim of the Plaintiffs is essentially based upon two unregistered inadequately stamped notarised xerox copies of the Agreements. The first Agreement shows the suit flat being sold on 8.6.1985 by one Jugraj Shah and Bhimraj Shah to Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the Suit who are Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this Appeal from Order (AO) being one Jayshree Vora and Jitendra Vora. The second document is an Agreement to transfer the shares and flat of 50% value by Jitendra Vora to one Ashok Vora. Jayshree Vora is the confirming party. The document shows that it is a sale and release of right, title and interest of Jitendra Vora in favour of Ashok Vora. 2.Jayshree Vora s husband one Satish Vora had taken a loan of Rs.28 Lakhs from Respondent No.4-Bank in 1990. The recovery certificate of the DRT came to be issued in 2003, pursuant to which the aforesaid auction took 3 place. 3.Jitendra Vora transferred his share under the aforesaid unregistered document to Ashok Vora. The Appellants / Plaintiffs are the heirs and legal representatives of Ashok Vora. They claim a separate 50% share in the suit flat, which came to be transferred to their predecessor-in-title Ashok Vora by Jitendra Vora. This, they claim, leaves out the separate 50% share of Jayshree Vora, which, they claim, may be separately attached in execution of the recovery certificate obtained by Respondent NO.4-Bank against Jayshree s husband, Satish Vora. 4.The Appellants as the Plaintiffs cannot rely upon these two documents as they are unregistered documents. They have not produced the original documents. The xerox copies show that they are insufficiently stamped if any transfer of title ever took place under those documents. 5.The Appellants have not shown that Jayshree Vora and Jitendra Vora in whose names the suit flat stands had contributed separate consideration amount so as to have a separate definite 50% share in the property which could be subdivided amongst them. Consequently, by the two names simpliciter being on any document of transfer 4 of flat, each party cannot claim a separate 50% share thereunder, though they may claim to be joint owners of the undivided shares in the suit flat. 6.It is, therefore, seen that the Appellants have not made out any prima facie case to show the separate share which has to be carved out of the whole flat. The Appellants cannot claim under the unregistered Agreements. 7.Consequently, refusal of the injunction by the learned City Civil Court Judge is correct. There is no merit in the AO. The AO is dismissed. 8.In view of the AO being disposed of, Civil Application being Civil Application No.790 of 2009 taken out in this AO has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)