1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.962 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1199 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.962 OF 2010 Jitendra Kailashchand Gupta & Anr. ... Appellants. Versus Nandini Ramraje Jadhav & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. P.S. Dani for the Appellants. CORAM : J.H. Bhatia, J. DATED : March 25, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. 2 The learned counsel for the Appellants, who are the original Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original Plaintiffs and Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are the original Defendant Nos. 1 to 5. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 had allegedly sold away, the suit land Survey No.206, Hissa No.1, ad-measuring 2 Hectare 8 Ares situated at Warak, taluka Mulshi under a sale deed dated 07.05.1997. It appears that the Plaintiffs, being non-cultivators, would not be entitled to purchase the agricultural land without prior permission of the authorities and therefore, the sale deed was declared invalid by the Revenue Authorities. After that, 2 the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 appear to have sold the said land to the Defendant Nos. 4 and 5, who sold the same to the Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. The Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 529 of 2007 seeking declaration of their title over the suit property and seeking cancellation of the later sale deed. The Plaintiffs also filed Application Exhibit 5 seeking temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from creating third party interest and from making any construction on the same. The trial Court allowed that application. That order is challenged in the present Appeal by the original Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. 3 The trial Court observed in paragraph No.16 of the impugned order that the Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are found to be in possession of the suit land and not the plaintiffs. However, taking into consideration the controversy, the trial Court found it necessary to restrain the Defendants from creating third party interest and also not to make any construction. Taking into consideration the controversy and the dispute, it is clear that the Plaintiffs are original purchasers of the property from the owners i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. That sale deed has been declared to be invalid by the Revenue Authority and the trial Court is seized of the matter, wherein it will be called upon to decide whether the Plaintiffs continue to hold title over the property or not. If the order of the Revenue Authority is found to be illegal and the title is found to continue with the Plaintiffs, the further sale deeds would automatically be invalid and would not create 3 any title in the purchasers. In case, the property had come to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as tenants and therefore, they were not entitled to sell the property, the property may be liable to forfeiture to the State and in that case, the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 would not be able to sell the property to any other person. I hasten to add that before this court no material is placed to show in what circumstances and on what grounds the Revenue Authorities held the sale deed to be invalid, but all these facts and circumstances will be required to be considered at the time of the trial of the suit. If the property is liable to forfeiture to the Government, the State may be necessary party for decision of that suit. In view of these circumstances, I find no justification to interfere in the discretionary relief granted by trial Court. Infact that is absolutely necessary in the interest of all the parties. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal stands dismissed. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose of the same as early as possible. In view of the above observations, the trial court shall look into the pleadings and the order of the Revenue Authorities and if necessary shall implead the State as a party in the matter. 5 As Appeal itself is finally disposed of, the Civil Application No. 1199 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H. Bhatia, J.)