1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 19 OF 2009. M/s Goa Homes & Developers, A Proprietorship Concern of Mr. Ravinder Nangia, Major of age, S/o S. G. Nangia, resident of C-500, Defence Colony, New Delhi, Represented herein by Mr. Raman Dogra, resident of C-262, Defence Colony, New Delhi, The Constituted Attorney of Mr. Ravinder Nangia. … Appellant. V/s 1. Mr. Savio Roque Da Fraca Misquita, Major of age, r/o First Floor, Gracias Buildilng, H.No. Not known, Mangor Hill, Vasco da Gama, Goa. 2. Mrs. Maria De Jesus Gracias, Major of age, W/o Savio Roque da Graca Misquita, r/o First Floor, Gracias Building, H.No. Not known, Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. … Respondents. Learned Advocate Mr. A. D. Bhobe, advocate for Appellant. None present for Respondents. 2 Coram : A. H. Joshi, J. Dated : 17th September, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Appellant is plaintiff. 2. The defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff in which he has signed for himself and for defendant No. 2. 3. Defendant No. 1 did not have a power of attorney for and on behalf of defendant No. 2. 4. According to plaintiff he has parted with huge amount of about 20 lakhs, out of which part thereof was paid by cheque and part by cash. 5. Considering that the defendants did not execute sale deed, the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance. 6. In said suit plaintiff has prayed for interim relief by way of injunction against defendants preventing alienation, creation of third 3 party interest etc. 7. The learned trial court has rejected the application for temporary injunction observing that the plaintiff does not have a prima facie good case in as much as agreement of sale is under infirmity namely; defendant No. 2 who is the wife of defendant No. 1 has right to the extent of half share in the suit property, is not a party to the contract, and the defendant No. 1 has no power to enter into agreement for her or relating to her property. 8. In this appeal, the applicant is urging that he has parted with huge amount and the husband has signed for and on behalf of the wife, and the defendant No. 1 has never denied the execution of sale deed. 9. The finding and observation recorded by the trial court relating to the infirmity are quoted below for ready reference:- “ The suit filed is for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 29.11.06. However, prima facie on the basis of the agreement defendant No. 2 has not been made a party to the said agreement 4 nor there is prima facie evidence to imply the consent of defendant No. 2. Besides, there is no dispute that defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and being entitled to a share under the Portuguese law by virtue of her marriage with defendant No. 1. Besides, defendant No. 1 had neither Power of Attorney nor such other authority to sign the agreement on behalf of defendant No. 2. Besides, there is no cogent explanation given by the plaintiff as to why the defendant no. 2 could not sign the agreement personally which supports the contention of defendant No. 2 that she was not willing to sign the agreement. Besides, it is well settled principle of law that buyer be aware, being so, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to look into the legal aspect before entering into Agreement for sale.” 10. This above quoted findings are not seen to be contrary to records or contrary to law. 11. In these premises, appellant has no case on merit. Appeal is dismissed. C.A. Does not survive. A. H. JOSHI, J. MF/-