1 417.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 417 OF 2011 Fiza Constructions. ... Appellant. V/s. Revatibai Kaluram Ulvekar and others. ... Respondents. U.P.Warunjikar for the appellant. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Akhilesh Dalog and A.A.Khan i/b. M.Tripathi & Co. for the respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 21st September 2011. P.C. : The appellant herein/ original plaintiff claims to have entered into an agreement to purchase the property from defendant Nos.1 to 3/ respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. The agreement is stated to have been executed and notarized on 11th March 2008 and the consideration shown is to the tune of Rs.55,00,000/-. The plaintiff claims that he has already parted with sum of Rs.55,00,000/- in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and they have agreed to convey the property by executing registered sale-deed in favour of plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 to 3 along with other sharers are 2 417.11-ao trying to create third party interest. As such, the plaintiff is constrained to institute suit claiming a decree of injunction against the defendants. 2. The concerned defendants have controverted the contention raised by the plaintiff in respect of parting with consideration amount of Rs.55,00,000/-. However, according to the defendants, a sum of Rs.27 lakh has been paid by cheque, whereas the amount stated to have been paid to the tune of Rs.28 lakh in cash has been denied by the defendants. The defendants, however, have not denied execution of the agreement, but contended that the plaintiff has misrepresented them and secured a fabricated document. In fact, the real transaction was in respect of relinquishment of their share in the suit property for which a sum of Rs.27 lakh has been received. 3. The trial Court on consideration of rival contentions was pleased to rejected the application of the plaintiff. The trial Court was much impressed by the submission advanced by the defendants to the effect that the property in dispute is a joint property belonged to eight shareholders whereas only three shareholders have entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that only three shareholders i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 3 do not have entitlement to alienate whole of the property. The trial Court has accepted the contention of the defendants and refused to grant interim relief in favour of the plaintiff. 4. It is to be borne in mind that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have not denied receipt of sum of Rs.28 lakh which has been paid by way of cheque. So also signatures appearing on agreement to sale have not been denied by defendant Nos.1 to 3. In the circumstances, it would 3 417.11-ao be open for the plaintiff to claim entitlement to the share which can be allotted to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 out of joint family property and the plaintiff can always seek necessary amendment to the plaint. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant/ original plaintiff that the plaintiff is desirous of seeking amendment to the plaint and, specially, in the background that all the co-sharers are not impleaded as party defendants to the suit. In such circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the plaintiff is granted liberty to move the trial Court once again with a request for grant of injunction after presenting an application seeking necessary amendment to the plaint and the trial Court is directed to decide both the applications. A limited protection for a specified period can be granted so as to enable the plaintiff to tender appropriate applications before the trial Court. If such applications are tendered, the trial Court shall be obliged to consider the applications and decide the same in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in this order so also the observations made by learned trial Judge in the order impugned in this appeal. 5. The original defendants shall not create any third party interest in respect of the suit property for a period of four weeks from today. 6. Appeal from order stands disposed of. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)