Bombay High Court
Paresh Kapadia vs Sandeep Runwal And 3 Ors on 7 November, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:20268
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.312 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO.179 OF 2017
Paresh Kapadia ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant ]
Residing at 9A, Residences Road, 401, ]
8th Floor, Bomanji Petit Road, ]
Mumbai - 400 026 ] ... Applicant/
Orig. Plaintiff
V/S.
1. Sandeep Runwal ]
Adult Indian Inhabitant ]
Having his address at Runwal & ]
Other Esquare, 5yh Floor, Off ]
Eastern Express Highway, Sion (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ]
2. Runwal Township Private Limited ]
a company incorporated ]
under the Companies Act, 1956 ]
having its office at Runwal & Omkar ]
th
Esquare, 5 floor, Off Eastern ]
Express Highway, Sion (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ]
3. Runwal Developers Private Limited ]
A company incorporated ]
under the Companies Act, 1956 ]
having its office at Runwal & Omkar ]
th
Esquare, 5 floor, Off Eastern ]
Express Highway, Sion (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ]
4. Runwal Projects Private Limited ]
a company incorporated ]
under the Companies Act, 1956 ]
having its office at Runwal & Omkar ]
Esquare, 5th floor, Off Eastern ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
1/19
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.11.07
18:35:41
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc
Express Highway, Sion (East), ]
Mumbai - 400 022. ] ... Respondents/
Orig. Defendants
______________________________________
Mr. Praveen Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Ameet Gandhi, Adv.
Akanksha Mishra i/by Adv. Santosh Pandey for the Applicant.
Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Saket Mone, Adv.
Archana Gupte, Adv. Shrushti Thorat, Adv. Srushti Thorat, Adv.
Fatema Kothari, Adv. Sai Archit i/by Vidhii Partners for the
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 15th October, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 7th November 2025.
Judgment :
Brief facts under an oral agreement.
1) By the present suit, the Plaintiff seeks to recover a sum of ₹12.5 crores towards the efforts undertaken in bringing together all the owners and facilitating the sale of the Nepean Sea Road property, and an additional sum of ₹2.5 crores for securing the benefit of the setback area which had been acquired by the Municipal Corporation at an earlier point in time. It is the Plaintiff's case that the original file of correspondence with the Municipal Corporation in relation thereto was handed over to the Defendants. The aforesaid consideration was agreed to be payable upon completion of the sale of the Nepean Sea Road property. To secure payment of the additional consideration, a charge was created over four flats in the Defendants' 2/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc project at Lokhandwala, Andheri, together with a statutory charge on the Nepean Sea Road property. The payment of the additional consideration was deferred until the sanction of the building plans for the said property.
Mr. Samdani's submissions.
2) The Defendants have admitted the existence of an oral Agreement. However, it is for payment of an additional sum of Rs.10 crores under a second component, towards obtaining the benefit of additional Floor Space Index (FSI) in respect of the setback area, which the Plaintiff had agreed to secure at his own cost. By way of comfort and with a view to secure the additional consideration, three letters of allotment of flats at Lokhandwala in the Defendant's project were deposited with the Defendant's Solicitors, Kanga & Company.
3) The Defendants, however, have denied the Plaintiff's charge either on the Nepean Sea Road Property or on the Lokhandwala flats. The Nepean Sea Road Property has since been developed and all the flats therein, as well as those at Lokhandwala, Andheri, have already been sold by the Defendants. Even the FSI/TDR benefits in respect of the setback area have been received by the Defendants under the Development Rights Certificate dated 16th April 2024, which too have been disposed of sometime between May-2024 to August-2024.
4) The Defendants' contention that the amount of Rs.10 crores 3/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc
would be payable only if the Plaintiff himself obtained the FSI/TDR benefits from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ('BMC') at his own costs is misconceived and untenable because the Plaintiff had admittedly granted a Power of Attorney authorizing the Defendants to claim such benefits from the concerned authorities. In the alternative, even if it were assumed that the cost of obtaining the FSI/TDR benefit was to be borne by the Plaintiff, the same could at best, be deducted or set off against the admitted amount of ₹ 10 crores payable to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also learnt that the value of the FSI/TDR benefit actually received by the Defendants' is in excess of ₹ 35 Crores.
5) It is further submitted that the Deed of Conveyance expressly excluded the setback area admeasuring 404 square yards, which had been acquired by the Municipal Corporation in 1969. The conveyance was executed only for the balance area, as is evident from the stamp duty levied on the portion actually conveyed.
6) The Defendant's contention that the Nepean Sea Road Property was conveyed to them together with the benefit of the setback area is misconceived. If, as alleged, such benefit had already vested in the Defendants, there would have been no occasion or necessity to pursue or claim any FSI/TDR benefit in respect of the setback area.
4/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc 7) The Defendants themselves, in a writ Petition filed against
the Municipal Corporation, have categorically pleaded that they held the Power of Attorney to claim the benefit of the setback area. In view of this admitted position, the Plaintiff submits that he is entitled to a decree on admission in the sum of Rs.10 crores against the Defendants. The said contention is borne out from the Defendants own pleadings.
8) In the alternative, Plaintiff submits that the Defendants ought to be directed to deposit in this Court the entire amount realized from the sale of TDR, or in any event, a sum of Rs.10 crores to the credit of the present Suit.
9) In support of the aforesaid contentions reliance is placed on the following judgments:
I. Srinivas Ram Kumar Firm vs. Mahabir Prasad & Ors1 II. BBM Enterprise vs. State of West Bengal2 III. Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. vs. United Bank of India & Ors.3 IV. Shakti Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjiv Anand & Anr.4 Mr. Seksaria's Submissions:
10) It is submitted that no charge has been created, either under Section 55(4) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 ('TPA') or under 1 (1951) SCC 136 (Para 12).
2 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6087 (Para 33, 34).
3 (2000) 7 SCC 120 (Para 12-18).
4 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8975 (Para 53).5/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc Section 100 of the TPA, in respect of any of the properties in question.
11) The alleged oral Agreement to pay additional consideration to the Plaintiff, contemporaneous with the sale of his share in the Nepean Sea Road Property, comprised of two distinct components:
(i) Rs.12.50 crore towards the efforts undertaken by the Plaintiff to bring together all the owners and facilitate the sale; and
(ii) a further sum of Rs.2.50 crore towards the benefit of the set back area, in respect of which the original file of correspondence with the Municipal Corporation was handed over to the Defendants.
12) The relevant recitals of the Deed of Conveyance dated 30 th December 2010 evince that the entire property was sold on 'as is where his basis'. The relevant recitals are reproduced here and below:
"M. In the circumstances aforesaid, the Vendors are the co- owners of the said Property, holding in aggregate, 88.89% undivided share, right, title and interest in the said Property, as more particularly stated in the Second Schedule hereunder written (hereinafter the Vendors. 88,89% undivided share, right, title and interest in the said Property is hereinafter referred to as the "Saleable Property");
Q. The Vendors have agreed to sell, transfer and convey to the Purchaser and the Purchaser has agreed to purchase and acquire from the Vendors the Saleable Property on "as is where is basis' as regards physical condition and the rights of the Tenants/ Occupants in respect of the Tenanted/Occupancy Premises, but otherwise free from all other encumbrances and claims at or for the 6/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc aggregate lump sum consideration of Rs.204,44,70,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Four Crores Forty Four Lacs Seventy Thousand Only) and on the terms and conditions therein contained;
R. In the aforesaid circumstances, each of the Vendors shall be entitled to the following amounts out of the aggregate lumpsum consideration of Rs.204.44,70,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Four Lacs Seventy Thousand Only);
(i)Mrs. Punita Bharat Khatau Rs.25,55,30,000/-
(ii) Mrs. Nita Narendra Mulani Rs.25,55,30,000/-
(iii) Mr. Jaysinh Meghji Kapadia Rs.25,57,60,000/-
(iv) Rajesh Jaysinh Kapadia Rs.25,55,30,000/-
(v) Anil Jaysinh Kapadia Rs.25,55,30,000/-
(vi) Ranjit Meghji Kapadia Rs.36,04,10,000/-
(vii) Paresh Ranjit Kapadia Rs.36,01,80,000/-
(viii) Mrs. Chhaya Ashit Bhatia Rs.4,60.00,000/-
(nee Chhaya Rajit Kapadia)
----------------------------
Total Rs.204,44,70,000/-
==================
U. The Purchaser has on the date hereof, released/paid to the
Vendors, the entire consideration of Rs.204,44,70,000/. (Rupees Two Hundred and Four Crores Forty-Four Lacs Seventy Thousand Only) according to their respective undivided share in the said Property"
13) The relevant covenants of the deed of conveyance dated 30 th December 2010 are also reproduced hereinbelow:
"In consideration of an aggregate sum of Rs.204,44,70,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Four Crores Forty Four Lacs Seventy Thousand Only) released / paid, simultaneously with the execution of these presents, by the Purchaser to the Vendors according to their respective undivided share in said Property as aforecited (the payment and receipt whereof the Vendors do and each of them doth hereby admit and acknowledge and of and from the same and every part thereof doth hereby acquit, release and discharge the Purchaser forever) the Vendors do and each of then doth hereby grant, sell, convey, transfer and assure unto the Purchaser on 'as is where is basis' as regard physical condition 7/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc and the rights of the Tenants/ Occupants in respect of their respective Tenanted/ Occupancy premises, their 88.89% undivided share, right, title and interest in the said Property... ...
AND ALL the estate, title, interest and inheritance, possession, property benefit, claim and demand whatsoever at law and in equity of the Vendors in, to, out of or upon the Saleable Property... (pg. 38- Plaint) UNTO and to the use and benefit of the Purchaser absolutely forever SUBJECT to payment of all proportionate rents, taxes, assessments, rates and duties now chargeable upon the same to the Government of Maharashtra..."
14) The First Schedule of the Conveyance Deed also records:
"All that piece and parcel of land along with welling house/ structures standing thereon bearing Cadastral Survey No. 233 of Malabar Hill and Cumbala Hill division, the land measuring 2855 square yards (as per document of title including the portion admeasuring 404.44 square yards acquired by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for Street improvements)..."
15) The Plaintiffs (vendors) were paid a lump-sum consideration of Rs.204,44,70,000/- for the sale of the Nepean Sea Road Property. Out of this, the Plaintiff received Rs.36,01,80,000/- towards his share, as recorded in the Deed of Conveyance dated 30 th December 2010. Upon the payment, the title Deeds were handed over to the Defendants. There is, therefore, no question of any portion of consideration remaining unpaid. Consequently, the invocation of Section 55 4(b) of TPA is wholly misconceived, as there exists no unpaid purchase money for the sale of the Nepean Sea Road Property. As a corollary, there cannot be a charge on any property for such unpaid purchase money.
8/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc 16) A plain reading of Sections 55 4(b) of TPA makes it clear
that "the seller is entitled to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer for the amount of any unpaid purchase money and interest thereon". A vendor's charge is a statutory right, but it is confined to unpaid purchase money arising under an executed contract of sale. Such a charge must conform to Section 54 of the TPA and cannot arise from any oral agreement. Section 55 4(b) of TPA does not extend to collateral arrangements or independent oral understandings dehors the written agreement executed between the parties. Hence, no charge can be claimed on the basis of any prior oral agreement.
17) No charge is created over the three flats in the Respondent's Andheri project Runwal Elegante under the allotment letters deposited with the Solicitor Kanga and Company. Under Section 100 of the TPA, there must be a clear intention between the parties to create a charge, which is absent here. The contention is supported by the decision in K. Muthuswami Gounder vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder 5. The following facts militate against any such intention:
(i) There is no document or prior correspondence evidencing an intention to create a charge.
(ii) The allotment letters were merely kept in safe custody with 5 (1998) 7 SCC 327 (Para 15-17) 9/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc M/s Kanga & Company and were not to be acted upon.
(iii) The written, registered instruments executed between the parties do not record any charge.
The Affidavit of the concerned partner of M/s Kanga and company clarifies that:
(i) That the allotment letters were only kept in safe custody until further joint instructions of both parties;
(ii) No other documents concerning the allotment were handed over;
(iii) he had no role in the performance of either party's obligations, and hence, no trust was reposed in him for such performance as alleged.
18) The Plaintiff's claim is therefore negated by the sworn statement of the partner of M/s Kanga and Company and the Defendants, both affirming that the allotment letters were held only in safe custody and not with an intent to create a charge.
Consequently, no charge exists over the Andheri Lokhandwala property in favour of the Plaintiff.
19) The Nepean Sea Road Property was sold under two registered Deeds of Conveyance dated 30 th December 2010 and 12th August 2011. The alleged oral Agreement preceded these registered 10/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc Deeds of Conveyance and is superseded thereby. Once parties execute registered conveyance deeds embodying their final and conclusive rights, obligations and consideration, any prior oral understandings, assuming they existed, stands superseded and extinguished. The written Agreement which is registered displaces any prior understandings or oral Agreements and attains finality. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act') bars the admission of oral evidence to vary or contradict a written contract. Section 92 (4) of the Indian Evidence Act specifically prohibits evidence of any prior oral agreement inconsistent with the written terms. Reliance is placed on Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Doon Apartments Pvt. Ltd.6, Blue Star Ltd. vs. K.S. Khurana7 and Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani8. On this ground too, it is impermissible for the Plaintiff to allege a charge over the Andheri Lokhandwala property.
20) There are no admissions by the Defendant in the written statement as alleged in the Interim Application.
21) The Plaintiff's reliance on paragraphs 4.6 (page 125) and 12
(e) (page 137) of the written statement to suggest that the Defendants have admitted Rs.10 crores as due and payable is misconceived. Such reading is selective and misinterprets the 6 ILR 1979 Del 84 (Para 6 and 7) 7 DRJ 1993 (25) 162 (Para 30) 8 (2003) 6 SCC 595 (Para 12 to 22) 11/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc averments contained in the written statement and cannot amount to an admission. The assertion that Rs.10 crores would be payable only if the Plaintiff obtained additional FSI for 404 square yards setback area, at his own costs and effort, was merely part of an alleged oral agreement.
22) The Plaintiff does not allege having undertaken any steps or incurred any costs for securing such FSI benefit, as evident from paragraph No.5 (page 17) of the Interim Application. On the contrary, from paragraph 5 (N) onwards (page 24), the Plaintiff himself admits that it was the Defendant who made efforts, pursuant to which the BMC issued a DRC dated 16 th April 2024. The Defendant also filed Writ Petition No.2511 of 2019 before this Court, resulting in an Order dated 10th October 2023, and subsequently furnished a registered Declaration cum Indemnity dated 7 th March 2024 to the BMC. The Plaintiff's selective reliance on certain words in the Defendant's pleadings, without corresponding conduct or evidence, cannot justify any relief. Under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 an admission must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional. Reliance is placed on Himani Alloys vs. Tata Steel Ltd.9 9 (2011) 15 SCC 273 (Para 11) 12/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc
23) The alleged admissions regarding:
(i) Rs.12.5 crores payable towards additional consideration for the Plaintiff's efforts in securing family consent; and
(ii) Rs.2.5 crores towards his alleged share in the set back area, subject to the Plaintiff procuring TDR at his own cost -
are specifically denied by the Defendants in their written statement. On the contrary, the Plaintiff's case is inconsistent with the very oral understanding propounded by him.
24) Any reliance on the Defendants averments concerning the nature of the oral Agreement undermines the Plaintiff's own cause of action, as it evidences absence of consensus ad idem regarding the alleged additional consideration. There is thus no admission in the written statement entitling the Plaintiff to any relief. Prayer (b) of the Interim Application has, in any event, become infructuous, since third party rights have been created by utilisation the entire FSI of 845.40 square meters. The Defendants additional Affidavit dated 4 th March 2025 confirms that the entire FSI under the DRC dated 16 th April 2024 has been transferred to the third parties. Hence, the prayer clause (b) seeking restraint on dealing with such FSI/TDR is infructuous.
25) The Plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs on account of delay and laches.
13/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc 26) The Interim Application has been filed after an unexplained
delay of nearly seven years, negativing any plea of urgency or irreparable harm. The Plaintiff's own case is that additional consideration became payable upon sanction of the building plans for the Nepean Sea Road Property, which occurred on 13 th September 2012. Thus, the cause of action, if any, arose then - not on 16 th October 2015, as now pleaded.
27) Any injunction against the alienation or disposition of the properties could only have been sought in 2012, when the alleged right accrued, not belatedly through the present Interim Application.
28) The earlier Notice of Motion (L) No.53 of 2017, wherein the Plaintiff sought interim injunctions concerning the Lokhandwala property and the Nepean Sea Road Properties was dismissed. A fresh attempt to seek identical reliefs is misconceived and untenable.
29) The Plaintiff is disentitled to any relief after an unexplained lapse of nearly seven years, and in any event, more than four years after filing of the written statement in 2019. The present Interim Application filed only in 2024 offers no explanation for such delay. A direction to deposit or pay the alleged amount at this interim stage would virtually amount to granting a final money decree before adjudication on merits, which is impermissible in law. 14/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc 30) The Plaintiff's prayer seeking deposit of ₹ 10 crores on the
basis of an alleged admission is an attempt to bypass the process of trial and adjudication.
31) Granting such relief would amount to granting the final relief at the interim stage and would cause grave prejudice the Defendants. It is well-settled that no interim injunction or mandatory direction for payment or deposit can be granted in a Suit for recovery of money. On this ground also, the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
32) The right to TDR was expressly excluded from the scope of the conveyance deeds executed between the parties.
33) The order dated 10th October 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court is as under.
"13. In the present context, such 'law' would be section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, which provides for agreement-based compensation and compulsory acquisition, about which even the respondent- Corporation does not raise any dispute. So, the compensation, as per this law, would have to be paid to a rightful claimant, which is not paid here so far. In the present case, the rightful claimant would be petitioner no. 1. Reason being that the erstwhile owners, seen from aforestated conveyance deeds, had transferred their right, title and interest in the saleable properties which included, the setback land. Of course, the setback land was not available for transfer of any title in it to the present owner but, the right to receive compensation in respect of the land already acquired, which had accrued to the erstwhile owner, was indeed available for its transfer to the present owner, it 15/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc having remained alive till then, and this was what was done by the said conveyance deeds. By these deeds, right, title and interest in the setback land, together with the remaining portion of land were transferred by the erstwhile owners to the present owner. That only meant, in the context of the setback land, that a live right to receive compensation in lieu of acquisition of setback land was transferred by the erstwhile owners to the present owner. This is further confirmed by the averments made in this regard by the petitioner no. 1 in its additional affidavit-in-reply dated 30th June 2023 supported by giving of authority by the erstwhile owners to petitioner no. 1 to obtain FSI in lieu of the setback land acquired by the Corporation, not denied by the Corporation. Besides, there is also evidence on record, about which we have already discussed in the earlier paragraphs, showing that right to claim compensation in lieu of the acquired setback land has been consistently asserted by the erstwhile owners and then by the petitioner no. 1, the present owner. It would then follow that what is said in the aforestated conveyance deeds regarding sale of the saleable properties on "as is and where is basis", meant exclusion of physical land relating to setback area and inclusion of right of the erstwhile owners to claim compensation for the acquired setback land which was transferred to the petitioner no. 1. That means the petitioners are within their right in law to claim compensation for the acquired setback land, in accordance with law, from the Corporation. We therefore, find no merit in the argument of learned counsel for the Corporation in this regard."
34) In view of the foregoing, the Defendants' contention that the right to TDR was excluded from the purview of the conveyance deeds executed between the parties stands belied by the express recitals and covenants contained in the Deed of Conveyance, as quoted hereinabove.
16/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::
sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc 35) In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the
present Interim Application is devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed with costs.
36) I have heard the rival submissions by both senior counsels and perused the record before me.
37) I find merit in the submissions advanced by Mr. Seksaria. In my view, there is no consensus ad idem in the alleged oral understanding between the Plaintiff and Defendants. Consequently, no direction can be issued to the Defendants to deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores at this stage. The Plaintiff will have to establish his assertions by leading evidence; such a determination cannot be made summarily at the interim stage.
38) The Plaintiff asserts that Rs.12.5 crores was payable for his efforts in bringing together the family members to execute an agreement with the Defendants, and Rs.2.5 crores was payable towards the benefit of the setback area admeasuring 404 square yards. The Defendants, however, deny the claim of Rs.12.5 crores and assert that the alleged payment of ₹ 10 crores was under a different understanding relating to the FSI/TDR benefit. The two versions are mutually inconsistent, and in the absence of consensus between them, no prima facie case for directing the deposit of ₹ 10 crores is made out. The Plaintiff must prove his case through evidence and 17/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc cannot rely on averments in the Defendant's written statement which are alleged to have been misinterpreted by the Plaintiff.
39) I also find merit in the submissions of the Respondents that no charge has been created either under Section 55 (4) (b) or Section 100 of the TPA as there is no unpaid consideration under the Deed of Conveyance. The recitals and covenants of the Deed of Conveyance are clear and unambiguous - the entire sale consideration has been paid by the Defendants and received by the Plaintiffs. The additional consideration now claimed is founded solely on an alleged oral arrangement, which will have to be proved through evidence. Section 55 (4)(b) of TPA is inapplicable, as there is no unpaid purchase price.
40) The Interim Application is also barred by delay. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated having taken any steps towards obtaining the FSI/TDR benefit from the BMC, nor has he produced any document evidencing such efforts. The mere fact that the Defendants had been granted a Power of Attorney does not absolve the Plaintiff from showing the steps taken or correspondence exchanged. No communication has been placed on record seeking payment or explanation from the Defendants after execution of the registered conveyance. The deposit of allotment letters in respect of three flats at the Lokhandwala property cannot by itself, establish a charge in 18/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 ::: sumedh 903-osia-312-2025-J.doc favour of the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff has not taken any steps for specific performance since execution of the registered Deed of Conveyance dated 30th December 2010 and the present suit came to be filed only in 2017.
41) For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to grant any interim relief as sought by the Plaintiff in the present Interim Application.
42) Interim Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) Cases Referred:
1. Srinivas Ram Kumar Firm vs. Mahabir Prasad & Ors. (1951) SCC 136 (Para 12).
2. BBM Enterprises vs. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6087 (Para 33,34).
3. Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. vs. United Bank of India & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 120 (Paras12-18).
4. Shakti Residency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjiv Anand & Anr. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8975 (Para 53).
5. K. Muthuswami Gounder vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder, (1998) 7 SCC 327 (Paras 15-17).
6. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Doon Apartments Pvt. Ltd. ILR 1979 Del 84 (Paras 6 and 7).
7. Blue Star Ltd. vs. K.S. Khurana, DRJ 1993 (25) 162 (Para 30).
8. Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595 (Para 12 to 22)
9. Himani Alloys vs. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273 (Para 11).19/19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2025 00:26:52 :::