1 57 ao.378.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 378 OF 2011 Sou. Nandini Narayan Nagavekar and another. ... Appellants Versus Sunil Chandrao Marne and others. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr. Amit B. Borkar i/b Mr.Prasad B. Kulkarni for the Appellants. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, i/b Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 02 nd May, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. 2 The Appellants are the original plaintiffs. There is no dispute that the Appellants have executed an agreement for sale dated 5 th February, 2010 and irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 5 th February, 2010 in favour of Respondent No.1. There is no assertion made in the plaint that the Appellants have not received the consideration amount payable to them as per the agreement dated 5 th February, 2010. The 2 57 ao.378.11 agreement dated 5 th February, 2010 contains a recital that the entire amount of consideration has been received by the vendors under the said agreement. 3 The grievance of the Appellants in the suit is that the market value of the suit property is much more than what is reflected in the said agreement. The other grievance is that the Respondent No.1 could not have got executed the sale­deed in his own name on the basis of the Power of Attorney. One more grievance of the Appellants is that the Respondent No.1 was not put in possession under the agreement for sale and the possession of the suit property was to be handed over at the time of execution of the sale­deed. It is contended that the Respondent No.1 could not be in possession. 4 By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has declined to grant relief of temporary injunction in favour of the Appellants. The averments made in the plaint show that the said agreement and power of attorney were duly registered in the office of the Sub­Registrar and the 3 57 ao.378.11 Appellants were present in the office of the Sub­Registrar. There is no allegation made in the plaint that the documents were fraudulently obtained. 5 Prima­facie, it appears from the recitals in the Agreement that the Appellants have received the entire consideration payable to them under the said agreement for sale. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in declining to grant interim relief of equitable nature. 6 Hence, no case for interference is made out. Appeal from order is dismissed. All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open. 7 Civil Application No. 527 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]