Bombay High Court
Lodha Estate Private Limited vs Shri Kishan Waman Bhoir on 21 October, 2011
Author: R.M. Borde
Bench: R.M. Borde
1 ao590.11.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Appeal from Order No. 590 of 2011
WITH
Civil Application No. 812 of 2011 in AO 590/2011
Lodha Estate Private Limited
through Director
Shri Rajendra Lodha
2nd floor, 216, Shah & Nahar
Industrial Estate, Dr. E. Moses Road.
Worli, Mumbai 400 018.
office address-Lodha Paradise,
Eastern Express Highway, Majiwada
Thane(W). ....Appellant
(orig. Defendant)
v/s.
1. Shri Kishan Waman Bhoir
2. Smt. Rajani Kishan Bhoir
r/at Balkum, Tal. Dist.Thane.
3. Smt. Nayana Vasant Choudhary
r/at Dombivli, Tal. Dist. Thane.
4. Smt. Alka Vilas Vaiti
5. Shri Rajaram Barkya Bhoir
6. Smt. Anusaya Rajaram Bhoir
7. Shri Mahendra Rajaram Bhoir
8. Smt. Vaishali Mahendra Bhoir
9. Shri Raghunath Rajaram Bhoir
10. Smt. Nanda Raghunath Bhoir
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 :::
2 ao590.11.sxw
11. Shri Sandesh Raghunath Bhoir
12. Ms. Yogita Raghunath Bhoir
13. Kumar Rupesh Raghunath Bhoir
being minor represented through
sr. no.9 Raghunath R. Bhoir
14. Shri Nitin Rajaram Bhoir
15. Shri Dinesh Rajaram Bhoir
(above sr. nos. 4-15 r/at
Mauje Balkum, Tal. Dist. Thane.)
16. Smt. Kunda Kesri Patil
r/at Mauje, Ghansoli
Taluka Thane.
17. Smt. Manda Ramesh Patil
r/at Mauje Turbhe,
Taluka Thane.
18. Smt. Yamuna Bhalchandra Bhoir
Mauje, Majiwada, Dist. Thane.
19. Smt. Bhanumati Pramod Patil
r/at Mauje, Balkum, Tal. Dist. Thane.
(For sr. nos. 1-6 and 8-19 and for Sr. No. 7(self)
through Constituted Attorney
Shri Mahendra Rajaram Bhoir
r/at Mauje, Balkum, Tal. Dist. Thane. ....Respondents
(orig. Plaintiffs)
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Sr. Counsel with Pravin Samdani, Rahul Dwarkadas, M.
Mukerji i/b. M/s. Wadia Ghandy & co. for the appellant.
Mr. R.S.Apte, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mandar Limaye for respondents 1-14.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 :::
3 ao590.11.sxw
CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 14th October, 2011
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:- 21st October, 2011
JUDGMENT:
Heard Counsel for the parties.
Admit.
With the consent of the parties, Appeal taken up for final disposal.
2. The appellants-original defendants are taking exception to the order passed below exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 186/2011 thereby granting an order of injunction in favour of the respondents-original plaintiffs and against the defendants restraining them from making and/or continuing any construction over the properties of the plaintiff including the suit properties and the lands bearing Hissa Nos. 8 and 3 of Survey Nos. 25 and 26 respectively of village Majiwade, Dist. Thane. The original defendants-appellants herein are also restrained temporarily during the pendency of the suit from creating third party interest in respect of aforesaid properties. The plaintiff instituted a Special Civil Suit No. 186/2011 for the following reliefs:-
"a) the suit may be decreed;
b) in the Schedule mentioned in Para No.6, since Suit
Properties No. 1 to 7 were included in the unregistered agreement dated 30/8/2005 rendering the unregistered agreement illegal and hence the suit Agreement may be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 4 ao590.11.sxw cancelled and for the declaration that the Defendants do not have any right to carry out any lawful work and Development Work in the suit properties and the illegal construction work carried out by is not binding upon the Defendants.
c) the order of this Hon'ble Court for Declaration that, the Defendants have kept the Plaintiffs in dark and cheated the Plaintiffs by adding three (3) properties in the suit Power of Attorney as mentioned in para No. 7 of this suit at Sr. No. 1 to 10 is illegal and any work and acts done by the Defendants in furtherance of the suit Power of Attorney is not binding upon the Plaintiffs and for declaration that, all the work/acts done by the Defendants in furtherance of the Suit Agreement and Suit Power of Attorney, permissions and approvals obtained without any rights and hence are illegal and hence the said permissions are not binding upon the Plaintiffs.
d) Hon'ble Court may by it's order and directions required the Plaintiff demolish the any type of constructions carried out the suit properties and handover, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
e) permanent injunction against the defendants, their agents, their workers and any other persons claiming through the Defendants by restraining them from entering into, carrying out Development Work, Construction Work, procuring permissions, approvals on the basis of the suit deeds, transferring/creating third party rights in respect of the constructions in the suit properties in favour any persons, institutions by any agreement, deed act, restraining the transfer and parking of possession by the Defendants.
f) Ad-interim relief in terms of temporary injunction against the Defendants, their agents, their workers and any other persons claiming through the Defendants by restraining them from entering into, carrying out Development Work, Construction Work, procuring permissions, approvals on the basis of the suit deeds, transferring/creating third party rights in respect of the constructions in the suit properties in favour any persons, institutions by any agreement, deed, act, restraining the transfer and parking of possession by the Defendants.
g) ex-parte Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause 7(A) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 5 ao590.11.sxw till the filing of reply/written statements by the Defendants.
h) any other orders in favour of the Plaintiffs as the court may deem fit.
i) for cost of this Suit."
3. On 30th August. 2005 under a Development Agreement executed between the appellants and the respondents i.e. Defendants and plaintiffs, the plaintiffs granted rights to develop certain properties 7 Survey Nos. situated at Village Majiwade, Thane. The consideration amount mentioned was Rs. 3,11,04,007/-.
The terms and conditions are specified in the Development Agreement executed between the parties. On the same day the plaintiffs executed in favour of the appellant-original defendants an irrevocable Power of Attorney in respect of property situated at Village Majiwade, Dist. Thane enlisting 10 Survey Nos.
details whereof are set out in the Deed of Power of Attorney. It is not disputed that the possession of the property is handed over to the Developer/Defendant nor there is any serious dispute in respect of receipt of consideration amounting to Rs. 3,11,04,007/- by the respondents-original defendants. The grievance made by the plaintiff in the plaint is that at the time of entering into agreement, they were informed by the defendants that the consideration of the 7 properties would be decided after taking into consideration the market value of the properties at the time of registration of conveyance. It is also stated in the plaint that defendants informed the plaintiff that after obtaining necessary permission, after conducting survey of the suit property and after submitting the plans for approval in the Municipal Corporation, Thane, they have executed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 6 ao590.11.sxw and registered conveyance in respect of 7 properties and assured the plaintiffs that they will be paid additional consideration as per the market value of the said property prevailing at that time. According to the plaintiff the defendants are not abiding by the assurances given by them and neither the Development Agreement is registered nor the plaintiffs have paid additional amount equivalent to market value. It is also contended in the plaint that infact the Development Agreement executed by the plaintiff with the defendant is in respect of 7 properties whereas the irrevocable Power of Attorney is secured by the defendant in respect of 10 properties. The properties i.e. Survey Nos. 25 Hissa No.8, Survey No. 26 Hissa No.3, Survey No.2 Hissa No.7 were not part of the Development Agreement and without paying any consideration amount for the said properties, those have been included in the irrevocable Power of Attorney. Infact there was no intention to authorize the defendants to undertake development work in respect of the additional 3 properties.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have taken undue advantage of their poverty and illiteracy and secured execution of irrevocable Power of Attorney in respect of additional 3 properties. It is also contended that oral assurances given in respect of payment of amount equivalent to the market value of the property is not being adhered to by the defendants. The plaintiff, therefore, proceeded to issue a notice through Advocate to the defendant thereby cancelling the Power of Attorney as well as the Development Agreement. The notice was addressed to the defendant on 26th December, 2009 and same was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 7 ao590.11.sxw followed by a 2nd notice dated 4th August, 2010. The defendants did not pay any heed/attention to the notice and continued with the development work.
The plaintiffs were, therefore, constrained to file a suit which was presented in the month of February, 2011.
4. In a pending suit, the plaintiff presented an application seeking an order of injunction restraining the defendants from entering into, carrying out development work or construction work, procuring permissions, approvals on the basis of suit deeds, transferring/creating third party rights in respect of the constructions in the suit property in favour of any persons, institutions by any agreement, deed, act, restraining the transfer and parking of possession by the defendants.
5. The defendants appeared and resisted the application by filing say. It is denied by the defendants that there was any oral assurance given by them for paying additional amount equivalent to market rate at the time of execution of the registered deed. It is also contended that the allegations in respect of taking disadvantage of the situation or the illiteracy or poverty of the plaintiff have been denied by the defendant. It is contended that no fraud as alleged has been committed in securing the Development Agreement or the irrevocable Power of Attorney. It is the contention of the defendant that the consideration amount of Rs. 3,11,04,007/- was the market value of the property on the date of execution ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 8 ao590.11.sxw of the Development Agreement and the Power of Attorney which was agreed between the parties to be the market value after due negotiations. The document namely the Development Agreement contains a recital that an amount of Rs. 3,11,04,007/- is a market value of the property on the date of execution of the document which is agreed between the parties to be the market value. Therefore, no question of agreeing to pay any additional consideration at subsequent point of time arises. It is also contended that after execution of the documents namely the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, the defendants obtained a Exemption Order under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 in respect of the suit property. The defendants mortgaged the suit property with a view to raise funds for the proposed construction of the suit property. They also obtained permission for development in respect of the suit property on 27th December, 2007. After obtaining requisite permissions and NOC from various authorities the appellant commenced the development activities on the suit properties and the lands attached thereto. Since between the year 2008-2011 the appellants have constructed several multi storey buildings and expended over Rs. 100 Crores towards the construction of the said building. The defendants-appellants herein have also sold over 500 residential units to various third parties by and under registered agreements. In this view of the matter, it is contended that there is neither prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff nor balance of convenience lies in their favour. Sofar as the execution of the Power of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 9 ao590.11.sxw Attorney in respect of the 10 properties is concerned, it is contended that there was an earlier litigation wherein the issue in respect of Survey No. 25, Hisa no.
8 and Survey No. 26, Hisa No. 3 is settled. There was a Compromise decree in favour of on e Shri Sainath Enterprises, a sister concern of the defendant in earlier litigation and in view of the Compromise decree, the defendant had acquired the rights in respect of Survey Nos. 25 and 26. Sofar as Survey No. 2 is concerned, the same has been acquired by the defendant from one Saghunabai under the registered Development Agreement dated 25th June, 2003 and the defendants have no concern and are not liable to pay any consideration in respect of the said Survey Number. Thus, it is contended that the application tendered by the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction does not warrant favourable consideration. The trial Court after hearing both the parties was pleased to allow the application Exhibnit 5 tendered by the plaintiff and issue restraint order restraining the defendants from making and/or continuing any construction activities over the suit property including the lands bearing Nos. 25 and 26 of Village Majiwade, Dist. Thane. The defendants are also restrained from creating third party interest.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the respective Counsels. My attention is invited to the document i.e. Development Agreement dated 30th August, 2005. In Paragraph D, it is clearly mentioned that the consideration amount of Rs. 3,11,04,007/- which is in accordance with current market rate is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 10 ao590.11.sxw acceptable to the executants i.e. plaintiffs. There is also recital to the effect that defendants are authorized to develop the property alongwith other properties and may construct one or several buildings thereon and may also transfer the constructed units to third parties and earn profit. On perusal of the Development Agreement it does not transpire that there was an agreement in respect of deciding the price of the property at the future dates or at the time of executing the registered agreement. The pleadings raised in the plaint appears to be contrary and is not in consonance with the written agreement. The terms of the oral agreement which are contrary to the written document cannot be taken into consideration in view of the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sofar as the passing of consideration amount is concerned, there is little doubt in that regard and it is not seriously disputed that the amount of consideration mentioned in the document i.e. the Development Agreement executed on 30th August, 2005 amounting to Rs. 3,11,04,007/- has already been passed over to the original plaintiffs. Thus it transpires that the plaintiffs have received the total amount of consideration and handed over the possession of the property to the defendants and have agreed for grant of development rights so also agreed for creation of third party interest by the Developer after developing the property. There does not appear to be prima-
facie any force in the contention of the plaintiff that they have been deceived by the defendants.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 :::11 ao590.11.sxw
7. Sofar as another contention raised by the plaintiff that Development Agreement makes a mention of 7 (seven) properties whereas by virtue of execution of irrevocable Power of Attorney, the defendants have secured development rights in respect of 10 (ten) properties which itself amounts to fraud. In that regard, my attention is invited to terms of Compromise decree presented in Special Civil Suit No. 262/1988. It was a suit presented by one Shri Sainath Enterprises which is a sister concern of the defendants. The pre-
decessor in title of the plaintiff Waman B.Bhoir and Rajaram B. Bhoir were party to the suit. The terms of Compromise are recorded between the plaintiff in the said suit and defendant no.4 i.e. Kishore Kanungo. The defendant no.4 has given up his rights and entitlement in relation to the property Survey No. 25 and 26 in favour of Sainath Enterprises. It is also agreed and noted in the terms of Compromise that the plaintiff no.1 shall be put in possession and occupation of the suit property and every part thereof. Thus from the terms of the Compromise recorded between Shri Sainath Enterprises which is a sister concern of the defendant herein and the defendant no.4, it is clear that the Sainath Enterprises was in possession of the property and has received the same in view of the terms of the settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant no.4 therein. Sofar as entitlement of defendant no.4 is concerned, one has to look to the written-statement presented by the pre-decessor in title of the plaintiff in the said suit. The pre-decessor in title of the plaintiff in suit who were defendants 1 and 2 in the said suit have stated in Paragraph 25 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 12 ao590.11.sxw written-statement presented in Special Civil Suit No. 262/1988 that they have already sold the suit property and parted with possession thereof in favour of Shri Kishore Kanungo before filing of the suit. It is also reiterated in the written-statement that the concerned defendants have already created third party rights in favour of Kishore Kanungo and, therefore, the question of again trying to create third party interest does not arise. It is also stated in the written-statement in Paragraph 25 that since neither of the defendants nor plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and possession of the suit property having been handed over to said Kishore Kanungo, the allegations made by the plaintiff are without justification, incorrect and wrong. In view of the statement, stand taken by the pre-decessor in title of the plaintiff that they are not in possession of the property, said Kishore Kanungo was impleaded as defendant in the suit and the terms of settlement are reached and recorded between the plaintiffs and Kishore Kanungo in Special Civil Suit No. 262/1988.
In view of the clear admission of the pre-decessor in title of the plaintiff, they have no concern with the property Survey No. 25 and 26. The plaintiffs herein are not entitled to claim any right, entitlement in relation to the said property.
The pre-decessor in title of the plaintiff has categorically stated and admitted in S.C.Suit No. 262/1988 that they have sold property in favour of Kishore Kanungo with whom the defendants have entered into Compromise and have received the possession of the said properties. The contention of the defendant that by act of inclusion of 2 additional properties while executing the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 13 ao590.11.sxw irrevocable Power of Attorney, they have been deceived, therefore, appears to be incorrect. The plaintiffs were surely aware of the fact that their pre-
decessors have already sold property in favour of the Kishore Kanungo from whom the defendants have acquired the property i.e. Survey Nos. 25 and 26.
On account of inclusion of Survey Nos. 25 and 26 in the Deed i.e. Irrevocable Power of Attorney, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have been deceived or that the defendants have played any fraud by inclusion of said property in the Power of Attorney.
8. Sofar as the property bearing Survey No.2 is concerned, the plaintiffs have not been able to establish that said property belongs to them. The defendants have contended that they have entered into separate Development Agreement in respect of said Survey No. 2 with the owner thereof and the plaintiffs do not have any entitlement in relation to the said property deserves to be accepted. Thus, the contention raised by the plaintiffs that they have been deceived or some fraud has been practiced upon by the defendants, does not appear to be correct and allegations made in that behalf prima-facie do not appear to have any substance.
9. It is not seriously disputed that the plaintiffs have received a consideration amount mentioned in the document i.e. Development Agreement to the tune of Rs. 3,11,04,007/- which is in subsistence the market value ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 14 ao590.11.sxw arrived at between the parties while executing the documents. Having received the amount in the year 2005 or thereabout, it is not open for the plaintiff to prohibit the defendants from conducting any development activities on the suit property.
10. It is contended that the document executed in favour of defendant is an unregistered Development Agreement and unregistered Power of Attorney and, therefore, need not to be taken into consideration. Having received the advantage under the document, i.e. the unregistered Development Agreement and the Power of Attorney, it is not open for the plaintiffs to contend that the document cannot be acted upon. The plaintiffs are recipients of the amount which is equivalent to prevailing market value which was arrived at between the parties after due negotiations. The plaintiffs have also waited to raise the challenge to the transaction for about six years from the date of execution of the documents and atleast for about two years after transmitting the notice of cancellation of agreement. In the meantime, the defendants have secured all the clearances and started development activities over the property. It is pointed out that the several structures having about 22 storey have been built on the properties involved in the suit. Considering the progress of the development activity and the stage of the construction, the irreparable loss that would be caused to the defendants is more if they are prohibited from continuing with the development activities. Having received the amount of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 15 ao590.11.sxw consideration in respect of the properties, the prima-facie case and balance of convenience also does not tilt in favour of the plaintiffs for securing an order of injunction against the defendants restraining them from developing the property. Certain dates and events are material for considering as to whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff. The Development Agreement and the Power of Attorney are executed on 30th August, 2005 and the plaintiffs have been paid the entire consideration amount in or about the year 2005. The defendants secured Exemption orders under Section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in the year 2007 and also secured N.A. Permission on 27th December, 2007 and thereafter started development activities over the property. The construction was started and was continued during the year 2008 till 2011 and defendants have invested an amount to the tune of Rs. 100 Crores for constructing several multi storey buildings. The defendants also contend that they have created third party interest in favour of about 500 persons and residential units have been agreed to be sold to the prospective purchasers.
11. Thus, considering the sequence of events stated above, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. The principles governing grant of injunctions are stated in the matter of M. Gurudas & ors. vs. Rasaranjan & ors. (2006) 8 SCC 367. In Paragraph 18 of the Judgment it is observed that While considering an application for injunction, it is well-settled, the courts would pass an order thereupon having regard to:
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 :::16 ao590.11.sxw
(i) Prima facie
(ii) Balance of convenience
(iii) Irreparable injury.
In Paragraph 19 it is stated further that a finding on 'prima facie case' would be a finding of fact. However, while arriving at such finding of fact, the court not only must arrive at a conclusion that a case for trial has been made out but also other factors requisite for grant of injunction exist.
In Paragraph 21 of the Judgment it is observed that "
While considering the question of granting an order of injunction one way or the other, evidently, the court, apart from finding out a prima facie case, would consider the question in regard to the balance of convenience of the parties as also irreparable injury which might be suffered by the plaintiffs if the prayer for injunction is to be refused. The contention of the plaintiffs must be bona fide. The question sought to be tried must be a serious question and not only on a mere triable issue."
12. In the instant matter, considering the fact that the Development Agreement as well as the irrevocable Power of Attorney is executed in the year 2005 and the amount of consideration amounting to more than Rs. 3 Crores have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs, I do not find that the plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable relief. Having received the amount of consideration and permitted the defendants to develop the property and having invested the amount to the tune of Rs. 100 Crores by the defendants, it would not be appropriate at this stage to prohibit the defendants from continuing with the development activities or even putting a restraint in respect of creation of third party interest. In my opinion, the plaintiffs are not litigating in a bonafide ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 ::: 17 ao590.11.sxw manner nor the prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court has committed serious error in granting injunction and stalling the development project wherein the defendants have invested more than Rs. 100 Crores. The impugned order of injunction passed by the trial Court on 13th May, 2011, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Since the substantive suit presented by the plaintiff is pending for adjudication before the trial Court, it is made clear that whatever the development activities the defendants may carry on and the third party interest which the defendant may create would be subject to final outcome of the suit.
13. The Appeal from Order, thus, stands allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
14. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of.
(R.M.BORDE, J) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:52:43 :::