It appears that the substantial amount in the sum of Rs.10.00
Lacs has been paid out of agreed consideration of Rs.19.00 Lacs as per
agreement whereby the defendant was called upon to perform part of the
contract and execute the sale deed upon payment of entire consideration
amount. The plaintiff has apprehension that the defendant is likely to
create third party interest so as to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in the
pending suit. This apprehension of likelihood of creating thirty party
interest itself sufficient in the accompanying facts and circumstances that
there was an agreement to sell suit property existing which averred that
consideration is in the sum of Rs.19.00 Lacs and substantial amount of
Rs.10.00 Lacs was already paid. When such averments are made before
the trial Court, the trial Court should have protected the property from
changing its hands by the defendant pending disposal of the suit. The
defendant could have been restrained from creating third party interest till
trial Court decides the suit on merits. That being so, the impugned order
needs modification.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.121 OF 2014
Milind S/o Madhusudan Alsundekar,
v
Ajay S/o Prabhakar Rawat,
CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.
DATE : JULY 1, 2015.
Citation: 2016(2) MHLJ 656
Print Page
Lacs has been paid out of agreed consideration of Rs.19.00 Lacs as per
agreement whereby the defendant was called upon to perform part of the
contract and execute the sale deed upon payment of entire consideration
amount. The plaintiff has apprehension that the defendant is likely to
create third party interest so as to defeat the claim of the plaintiff in the
pending suit. This apprehension of likelihood of creating thirty party
interest itself sufficient in the accompanying facts and circumstances that
there was an agreement to sell suit property existing which averred that
consideration is in the sum of Rs.19.00 Lacs and substantial amount of
Rs.10.00 Lacs was already paid. When such averments are made before
the trial Court, the trial Court should have protected the property from
changing its hands by the defendant pending disposal of the suit. The
defendant could have been restrained from creating third party interest till
trial Court decides the suit on merits. That being so, the impugned order
needs modification.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.121 OF 2014
Milind S/o Madhusudan Alsundekar,
v
Ajay S/o Prabhakar Rawat,
CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.
DATE : JULY 1, 2015.
Citation: 2016(2) MHLJ 656
