- (1.)These special leave petitions assail the judgment and order dated 18.6.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No. 683 of 2012 arising out of Notice of Motion No. 16783 of 2007 in Suit No. 1280 of 2007 which has reversed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge who was pleased to grant an order of injunction in favour of the Petitioner Ramesh Vajabhai Rabari.
(2.)The special leave petitions are still at the admission stage and the entire dispute between the parties essentially revolves around the scrutiny of factual dispute and there is hardly any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in these special leave petitions so as to entertain the same under the parameters of Article 136 of the Constitution. In spite of this and in order to obviate any possibility of miscarriage of justice to either of the contesting parties on account of vacating the order of injunction, we granted liberty of hearing at some length to the counsel for the parties and hence thought it appropriate to assign the reasons substantially.
(3.)In order to examine the merits and demerits of the case of the contesting parties, we have examined even the factual dispute so as to consider whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of injunction granted by the Single Judge in favour of the Plaintiff/Petitioner herein to his prejudice. On scrutinising the same, it appears that an unregistered agreement was signed by one Edmond D'mello-deceased predecessor-in-interest of the vendor of Respondent No. 1 on 25.7.1973 to sell the suit land comprising an area of 11,733 sq. mtrs. situated at Village Ambivally, Taluka Andheri I, Mumbai and a Suburban District in favour of Shantilal Prabhubhai Patel but the execution of this agreement was to be completed within a period of two years. Subsequently, Shantilal Prabhubhai Patel assigned his rights in favour of M/s. Kirti Constructions Company vide agreement dated 7.8.1975. Thereafter, M/s. Kirti Constructions Company also assigned its rights in favour of V.B. Patel & Company vide the 3rd agreement dated 21.9.1975. All these agreements admittedly were unregistered agreements which at one point of time had also been challenged by the successor/owner of the suit land Betram D'Mello as the original owner Edmond D'Mello had expired on 25.3.1976 leaving behind two sons namely Betram D'Mello and Arhtur D'Mello since deceased and two daughters Diana Mary Rita Chamorette and Elaine Mery Teresa D'Mello. As already referred to hereinbefore, one of the heirs of deceased Edmond D'Mello, namely, Betram D'Mello filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay bearing Suit No. 7584/2000 on 24.12.2000 wherein it was averred that neither the Plaintiff Betram D'Mello nor during the lifetime of his deceased father Edmond B. D'Mello had executed any document creating any right, title or interest in favour of the Defendant No. 1 V.B. Patel and Company and the said company did not have any right, title or interest of any nature in respect of the suit land. However, this suit did not proceed further as the Plaintiff Betram D'Mello did not pursue the same and the suit land remained with V.B. Patel & Company