1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR A.O. 42/2010 Smt. Swati w/o Rajeshrao Denge Vs. Satish Baburao Padole ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.G. Shukla, Adv. for the appellant. Mr. G.D. Vaidya, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 15th JUNE 2010. 1] Heard. Rejection of injunction in terms of Application (Exhibit 5) by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur dated 17th February, 2010 is challenged by the plaintiff. The inter-se ownership over the property and the agreement of sale thereof for consideration of Rs. Forty nine lakhs is not in dispute. The plaintiff asserts that he has paid Rs. Fourteen lakhs, however, the vendor submits that it is not so. An amount of Rs. Fourteen lakhs incorporated in the agreement and the defendant was not received the same. To negate such contention, the plaintiff is equipped with passbook entry of withdrawal showing that the amount of Rs. Four lakhs were credited to the account of the defendant. Apparently, there is no transaction between the parties which the defendant could account and address that it was something else and other 2 transaction. The fact remains, prima facie, that there is payment of Rs. Fourteen lakhs from the plaintiff purchaser to the defendant. 2] Agreement is silent of creating any lien or charge over the property, however, the plaintiff has subsequently learnt and accepted by defendant that the property is under charge to the Financer. It was so informed by the defendant/vendor. However, a very strange stand was taken by the defendant that the plaintiff as purchaser has nothing to do with the charge created on the property. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that vendor shall inform about charge, lien or encumbrances on the property. The plaintiff as purchaser was willing to discharge the financial liability, provided the details and furnished. However, the slumber on the part of the defendant with a negative approach, has protracted the matter. Considering all the aspects, refusal to grant injunction by learned Judge is not justified. However, in-stead of clamping injunction against the defendant concerning possession the following order is passed. 3] The defendant/vendor (respondent in the appeal) shall not dispose of or create third party rights over the property 3 agreed to be sold by agreement of sale between the parties, till disposal of the proceedings. The appeal from order is allowed in the aforesaid terms. C.A. if any, disposed of. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.