Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.2 It is further case of the plaintiff that he called upon the defendant Nos. 1 to 18 to execute the sale deed by notice dated 4.4.2018. However, behind the back of the plaintiff, they fraudulently executed registered sale deed dated 5.7.2018 in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20 without issuance of any title clearance notice. It is contended by the plaintiff that though he was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration and get the title cleared, instead of selling the suit land to him, defendant Nos. 1 to 18 fraudulently sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 19 and 20.

8.1 Ms. Pahwa, learned advocate has also submitted that new purchaser have not issued any public notice for title clearance and, therefore, on this count also they cannot be treated as a bonafide purchaser. She has submitted that they must seek title clearance by public notice. She has submitted that Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act as well as Section 25 of the Contract Act are not applicable in the present case. Regarding the various decisions cited, which includes Ambalal Sarabhai's case (Supra) on the point of delay, she has submitted that the facts of those cases are different from present case. She has submitted that in case of Ambalal only MoU was entered into and there was no agreement or contract between the parties and time was essence of the contract and it was a commercial transaction C/AO/175/2021 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022 and contract was not concluded. She has also submitted that the judgment of High Court in the case of Motilal Jain v. Ramdasi Devi (Supra) has already been set-aside. She has submitted that considering the decision cited by her, which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the question as to whether defendant Nos. 19 and 20 are bonafide purchasers or not, needs to be decided after trial, but, the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff needs to be granted. She has prayed to allow the present Appeal from Order and grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiff.

9. Having considered submissions made on behalf of both the sides coupled with the material placed on record and the various pronouncement which are referred to hereinabove, it emerges from the record that there is no dispute as to the facts that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 had agreed to sell the Suit land to the plaintiff on certain conditions as per the agreement to sell dated 22.8.2017 for consideration of Rs. 11.30 Crore. There is also various conditions incorporated in the said agreement to sell, which includes the title clearance and mutation of the names of the heirs of the deceased Dilipsinh. It reveals from the record that the plaintiff has given notice for title clearance in the Newspaper on 8.11.2017. Against the notice, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and 9 and 17 have raised objection on 14.11.2017. It reveals from the said objections that respective defendants have clearly contended that the suit land is an ancestral property and they have heir-ship right in C/AO/175/2021 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022 the property and, therefore, since the transaction was entered into without their consent, no title clearance certificate be issued. It also reveals that as per objection, the specific averment has been made by the signatory to the agreement to sell that the plaintiff has not fulfilled his part of the agreement to sell and, therefore, the sellers are not ready to execute the same and informed the advocate of the plaintiff to take back the amount of consideration paid by the plaintiff and to issue receipt thereof.

10. It also reveals from the record that after receipt of the said objection in November, 2017, the plaintiff has issued legal notice on 4.4.2018 to defendants for withdrawal of the objections raised by them against the public notice and get title clearance certificate and to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as per the agreement to sell entered into between the parties within 15 days thereof. It appears that this notice has not been replied by the concerned defendants. It also reveals from the record that defendant Nos. 1 to 7 have got entered the names of defendant Nos. 8 to 18 in revenue record vide entry No. 7124 dated 12.4.2018. It also reveals from the record that on 5.7.2018, defendant Nos. 1 to 18 have executed sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20 for sale consideration of Rs. 7.50 Crore. It reveals that such transaction was made without any public notice, without any title clearance certificate. However, the fact remains that from the date of raising of the objections i.e. 14.11.2017, till issuance of legal notice i.e. 4.4.2018, no action was taken by the C/AO/175/2021 CAV ORDER DATED: 09/06/2022 plaintiff in respect of the alleged agreement to sell, especially when the concerned defendants have clearly denied to execute the sale deed and directed the plaintiff to get refund of consideration paid by him. It also appears that after issuance of notice on 4.4.2018 wherein time limited to execute sale deed and to withdraw the objection against title clearance within 15 days was fixed, no action was initiated by the plaintiff till the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 7.9.2018. Thus, when the sale deed was executed on 5.7.2018, the plaintiff has not approached the Court immediately but has waited for two months. The explanation given by the plaintiff for not taking any action in between the raising of objections by the defendants against the title clearance and issuance of legal notice, that there was oral conversion between the parties is concerned, is not plausible one. More so, when 15 days time after issuance of the legal notice dated 4.4.2018 was already expired and the original owner of the property have not complied with the notice within the stipulated period of 15 days, the plaintiff has waited for 5 months even thereafter. Not only that even after sale transaction, between defendant Nos. 1 to 8 in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20 in July, 2018, the plaintiff has filed the Suit in September, 2018 for equitable relief.