1 586.11-ao-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 586 OF 2011 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 587 OF 2011 Mrs.Sindhu Suresh Chavan and others. ... Appellants. V/s. Arup Builders and others. ... Respondents. A.S.Khandeparkar i/b. Khandeparkar & Associate for the appellants. R.D.Raghuwanshi i/b. Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for respondent No.2 & 5. P.S.Dani i/b. Prasad Kulkarni for respondent No.4. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 17th October 2011. P.C. : The plaintiff executed registered development agreement on 7th July 1999 and also a power of attorney on the same day authorizing defendant No.1 to carry out development activities on the suit property. The consideration prescribed for development agreement and the power of attorney was Rs.2 lakh in cash and five flats reserved in lieu of consideration of Rs.20 lakh. It appears that defendant No.1, in turn, executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.5 authorizing him to deal with suit property, which was also registered. 2 586.11-ao-- The father of defendant No.1 died on 28th October 2005. Before his death he executed power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 authorizing him to develop the property. The registered document was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.5 on 10th August 2007. Defendant No.5, in turn, assigned rights to develop the property in favour of defendant No.4 by executing registered sale deed for consideration. According to the plaintiff, on 30th October 2004, he has terminated the power of attorney and development agreement authorizing defendant No.1 to develop the property. The plaintiff, therefore, contends that further transactions of assigning development rights in favour of defendant No.5 and defendant No.4 are illegal acts on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff, as such, approached the Court seeking directions against the defendants to execute instrument of cancellation of development agreement dated 7th July 1999 and the power of attorney of the same date registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Mulshi (Paud). The plaintiff has also challenged the subsequent transactions effected at the instance of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5. In the pending suit, plaintiff presented an application (Exh.24) seeking restraint order against the defendants from creating any third party interest or charge over the suit property and dealing with it in any manner. Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 also preferred an application at Exh.19 seeking restraint order against the plaintiff from causing unlawful obstruction to the possession of the defendants over the suit land till the final disposal of the suit. The trial Court considered the application tendered by defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 and passed order in their favour and restrained the plaintiff from causing any interference or obstruction in the possession of defendant No.4 over the suit land. The application tendered by the plaintiff at Exh.24 came to be rejected. 3 586.11-ao-- Defendant No.4 is directed to give undertaking in the form of affidavit that he shall keep reserved five separate vacant flats of area as specified in the registered development agreement dated 7th July 1999 in any building to be constructed by him or any other person through him on the suit land. 2. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court and heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties. Under the development agreement registered on 7th July 1999 and the power of attorney of the same date, the possession is handed over to defendant No.1. The subsequent transaction has been effected by defendant No.1 by executing power of attorney in favour defendant No.5 and defendant No.5, in turn, has entered into transactions with defendant No.4. All the transactions entered into between the defendants are by a registered instruments. On perusal of the order and the documents placed on record, it transpires that the possession has already been parted with in favour of defendant No.1 in pursuance of the development agreement dated 7th July 1999. The possession of the property has, ultimately, been passed over to defendant No.4 who is developing the same. The consideration amount prescribed in the development agreement dated 7th July 1999 is Rs2 lakh in cash and five vacant flats to be reserved of the value of Rs.20 lakh. According to the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff, although it is recited in the document dated 7th July 1999 that the consideration has been passed over and it is averred by defendant No.4 that plaintiffs have received cash amount in lieu of vacant flats, according to the plaintiff, he has not received cash amount. However, the interest of the plaintiffs has sufficiently been protected by the trial 4 586.11-ao-- Court by directing defendant No.4 to keep vacant five flats of the specified area mentioned in the agreement dated 7th July 1999 executed by the plaintiff. 3. In my opinion, the interest of the plaintiff is sufficiently protected by the trial Court while passing impugned order. Even after the entitlement of the plaintiff can be assessed in terms of money. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for causing interference in a well reasoned order passed by the trial Court. The appeal for order is devoid of any substance. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 5. At this stage, counsel for the appellant- plaintiff seek seeks continuation of interim order. For the reasons recorded above, I do not deem it just and proper to continue interim order. Oral request made in this behalf is, thus, rejected. (R.M.BORDE, J.)