1 S.A.No.638.06+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2006 Latabai Suryabhan Gopale and another ... Appellants V E R S U S Kacharu Shankar Gawande(Deceased) Through L.Rs. and others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7127 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2006 Latabai Suryabhan Gopale and another ... Applicants V E R S U S Kacharu Shankar Gawande(Deceased) Through L.Rs. and others ... Respondents AND SECOND APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2006 Latabai Suryabhan Gopale and another ... Appellants V E R S U S Kacharu Shankar Gawande(Deceased) Through L.Rs. and others ... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7128 OF 2006 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2006 2 S.A.No.638.06+1 Latabai Suryabhan Gopale and another ... Applicants V E R S U S Kacharu Shankar Gawande(Deceased) Through L.Rs. and others ... Respondents ... Mr.S.T.Shelke,Advocate for Appellants Mr.L.V.Sangit ,Advocate for respondent nos 1B,1-C, 1-D and 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1] Both these appeals can be decided at this stage by this common Order. 2] Both the appeals arise from cross suits. The appellants herein, filed a suit for perpetual injunction stating that the respondents were trying to interfere their peaceful possession of the suit land without any reason. On the other hand, the respondents filed a suit for specific performance of contract, which was decreed. 3] The facts leading to the litigation are as under- . Some time in the year 1975, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 executed the sale deed in favour of the appellants conveying the suit land to him. On the very day, the appellants executed an agreement for re-conveying of the land in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The agreement 3 S.A.No.638.06+1 further contemplated that the transaction of re- conveyance would not take place before 15 years. After 15 years, when the respondent Nos.1 and 2 demanded re-conveyance, the appellants refused and so litigation started. 4] The Courts below held that the agreement was genuine and that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. Since, this aspect is factual one and since it is decided by giving cogent reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the findings. 5] The only question the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants posed was, "whether the agreement of re-conveyance could have been exhibited and read in evidence? and "Whether suit based on unregistered agreement for re-conveyance was maintainable?” 6] He submitted that since the agreement of re- conveyance created a right in favour of the respondent no.1 and 2 qua a immovable property which was admittedly worth more than Rs.100/-, the agreement required registration and adequate stamp. In support of this contention he placed reliance on two judgments namely- 1] Gajanan Narayan Patkar Vs. Jivangiri Chamelgiri, reported in AIR 1926 Bombay, 131. 4 S.A.No.638.06+1 2] James R.R.Skinner Vs Robert Hercules Skinner and others reported in AIR 1929 Privy Council, 269 7] Having gone through the Judgments, I found that they do not support the case of the appellants, though they held that the agreements in those cases required registration under section 17 of the Registration Act. In the latter case of Privy Council the facts were totally different than the case in hand In that case the document was proved to be a sale deed and not an agreement and so registration was held to be compulsory. 8] Even the facts of the Bombay H.C. Judgment case were different. It was held in that case that, “if the document which has not been registered is really part and parcel of the transaction, which is partly evidenced by the registered document, then it is clear that other document also requires registration.” In this judgment it is clearly held that if an agreement of reconveyance can be treated as separate transaction under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it vests no interest in the property and need not be registered. 9] Both the Judgments do not support the case of the appellants. There is otherwise no substantial question of law involved in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed. All the 5 S.A.No.638.06+1 interim orders stand vacated. Consequently the Civil Application 7127 of 2006 in Second Appeal No. 638 of 2006 and Civil Application 7128 of 2006 in Second Appeal No. 639 of 2006 stand dismissed. 10] The application of the appellants seeking stay to effect of the order is refused. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok