1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. Notice of Motion No.352 of 2007 WITH Notice of Motion No.2123 of 2007 In Suit No.354 of 2004 Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt.Ltd. .. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Otis Elevator Company (India) Ltd. & ors. .. .. Defendants And The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & ors. .. Respondents Mr.D.H. Mehta with Ms.Ghadalekar i/by M/s.Divya Shah & Associates for Plaintiffs. Mr.H.S.S. Murthy for Deft.No.8. Mr.S. Sirshikar for Deft.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.M. More, AGP for Deft.Nos.3 & 4. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 4th September, 2008 P.C. : 1.The Plaintiff claims their right, title and interest in an unregistered Article of Agreement dated 13.12.1984, entered into by them with Defendant Nos.2 to 7 as the trustees of 2 Defendant No.2-Trust. The Plaintiffs cannot rely upon an unregistered Agreement to claim interest in the land in a Suit. Nevertheless, they have claimed certain mandatory reliefs of being handed over possession of a certain land, the details of which are not shown in the Agreement. The land agreed to be developed by the Plaintiffs mentioned in the Schedule to the aforesaid Agreement specifies certain separate survey numbers. The boundaries of the land are specified in the Schedule. The important boundary for the purpose of claim in this Notice of Motion and the Suit is the northern boundary. The land sought to be developed by the Plaintiffs under the aforesaid Agreement is bounded on the north by Akurli Road. Consequently, the Plaintiffs cannot obtain any relief in respect of any land north of Akruli Road. 2.Defendant No.8, who claims rights from Defendant No.1, has its properties north of Akruli Road. Hence, no relief in the Notices of Motion as sought can be granted. Hence, the Notices of Motion is dismissed. 3.Both the Advocates state that earlier Notice of Motion i.e. Notice of Motion No.2123 of 2006 does not survive. It is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] 3