: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3159 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2288 OF 1999 Smt. T.V.Devi ..Plaintiff. Vs. Shri T.V.Krishnan Nair & Anr. ..Defendants. Ms.Rohini Dandekar i/b.Berarwala & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.Ashok Verma with Mr.Tejpal i/b.Tejpal & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendant no.1 to deposit an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- and for an injunction restraining the Defendants from disposing of, dealing with, encumbering or parting with possession of the suit land. The suit land has been surrendered by Defendant no.1 to the Bangalore Development Authority. In the circumstances, it is not possible to grant any relief of injunction in respect of the suit land. 2. The next question is whether Defendant no.1 : 2 : should be ordered to deposit the said amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. The Plaintiff’s contention is that the plot of land allotted to Defendant no.1 in lieu of the suit plot was sold by Defendant no.1 to Defendant no.2 by an agreement dated 28.2.2000 for an apparent consideration of Rs.16,00,000/-. 3. Firstly, even assuming the Plaintiff has any right to the sale proceeds, it must be restricted to 50% thereof as admittedly, the Plaintiff claims only a 50% right even in the suit property. The suit property, as stated above, is not the subject matter of the sale by Defendant no.1 to Defendant no.2. 4. Prima-facie, specific performance of the suit agreement cannot be granted in respect of a property other than that which formed the subject matter of the agreement. Moreover, Defendant no.2 is an innocent third party, no order which affects his rights can be granted. 5. The Plaintiff’s claim therefore at the highest, is in terms of money. It was contended that Defendant no.1 has been dealing with his properties in a manner so as to defeat a decree which may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Such an : 3 : application would be in the nature of an application for attachment before judgment. That is not the relief claimed in the present Notice of Motion. The Plaintiff is always at liberty to make an appropriate application for the same. 6. With the above clarification, the Notice of Motion is disposed of. ***