1 nms1892-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1892 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.1695 OF 2010 Kumar D. Vora ....Plaintiff V/s. Mrs.Bhadra T. Desai & Ors. ....Defendants Mr.Prakash Ganwani i/b Mr.M.B. Dalvi for the Plaintiff. Mr.R.R.Mishra for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 2.5.2009 by which the defendants agreed to sell a shop admeasuring 190 sq. ft. for a consideration of Rs.12.00 lacs. The agreement was registered. The entire consideration of Rs.12.00 lacs was paid. All the documents including the share certificate were handed over to the plaintiff. An application was made by the defendants to the society for transferring the share certificate in the plaintiff’s name. 2. The defendants themselves state that the parties have known each other for several years. This offers a reasonable 2 nms1892-10 explanation at least at the interlocutory stage for the plaintiff not having taken possession immediately upon payment of the entire consideration. Added to this is the fact that the documents of title especially the share certificate were handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is admittedly in possession thereof. 3. Police complaints have been filed by the parties in respect of the disputes between them on account of the defendants having failed and neglected to hand over possession of the suit property. 4. The defendants contended that the agreement was executed under coercion and force. Prima-facie there is nothing to indicate either coercion or force. The defendants’ niece is a witness to the agreement. She has not filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances in which she witnessed the agreement. 5. It is then contended that the plaintiff immediately after paying the amount of Rs.12.00 lacs withdrew the same by misusing certain blank cheques which were handed over by the plaintiff to the defendants as security for other earlier transactions between the parties. There is no evidence which indicates such other transactions for which the blank cheques had been allegedly handed over. The defendants state that the cheques were drawn in favour of Satyam Enterprises, which is controlled entirely by the plaintiff. Even assuming that to be so, it is pertinent to note that the balance-sheet of the sole proprietory concern of defendant No.2 for the financial year ending 3 nms1892-10 31st March, 2008 and 31st March, 2009 specifically referred to the defendants’ liability to Satyam Enterprises. Prima-facie, the defendants’ defence is not well founded. 6. Considering the fact that the plaintiff has paid the entire consideration and the documents of title are with the plaintiff, the mere grant of an injunction would not meet the ends of justice. 7. In the circumstances, the notice of motion is made absolute in terms of prayer (b). The Court Receiver shall however appoint the defendants as his agents without security but subject to payment of royalty. Till the Court Receiver takes possession, order in terms of prayer (c). This order is stayed upto and including 9.1.2012 to enable the defendants to challenge the same.