Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc v. Yagyanarayan Prabhunath Mishra

Judgment

1. Gaurav Rajeshbhai Desai, Age: 39 years, Adult, Occ.: Business, Indian Inhabitant and presently residing at A-1, Carnation Building, Godrej Hill, Khadakpada Barave, Kalyan West, Dist. Thane – 421301. Chirag Rajeshbhai Desai,

2. Age: 37 years, Occ: Business, Indian Inhabitant and presently residing at A-1, Carnation Building, Godrej Hill, Khadakpada Barave, Kalyan West, Dist. Thane – 421301.

3. Mitul Ramanbhai Desai, Age: 48 years, Occ.: Professional, Indian Inhabitant and presently residing at 805, Chandralok Building, Vapi Silvasa Road, Charod, Vapi, Gujrat and also having address at: Income and Sales Tax Practitioner, Dwarkadas Vithaldas Building, 2nd Floor, Opp. Post OfAce, Station Road, Kalyan West, Dist. Thane – 421301. V/s. Yagyanarayan Prabhunath Mishra,

1. Age: 83 years, Occ.: Retired, Indian Inhabitant and present having address at Adarsh Hindi High School, Rambaug – 4, Santoshi Mata Mandir Road, Kalyan West, Dist. Thane – 421301. Shikshan Prasaran Samiti, 2. a charitable trust having its address at Aadarsh Hindi High School, Rambaug – 4, Santoshi Mata Mandir Rd., Kalyan West, Dist. Thane – 421301. ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] … Appellants/ Org. Plaintiffs SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE 17:59:46 +0530 Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc The Education Welfare Society,

3. Kalyan, a charitable trust having its address at Aadarsh Hindi High School, Rambaug – 4, Santoshi Mata Mandir Rd., Kalyan West, District Thane- 421301 ] ] ] ] ] ] … Respondents/ Org. Defendants ___________________________________________ Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Shailendra Kanetkar i/by Adv. Shivraj Patne & Adv. Bharat Thorat for the Appellants.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar a/w. Adv. Pranay Singh i/by Legal Vision for the Respondents. ___________________________________________ CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J. RESERVED ON : 10th February 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 17th February 2026. JUDGMENT :

1. By this Appeal from Order under Section 104, read with Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellant/Original Plaintiff challenges the impugned Order dated 3rd May 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, Dist. Thane, whereby the Appellants’ application for temporary injunction, popularly known as Exhibit-5 Application, against the Respondent/Original Defendants came to be rejected. Brief facts :

2. The Appellants as joint owners are entitled to agricultural land bearing Survey No. 89, Hissa No. 01A + 1 B/2A admeasuring

5060.00 sq.mtrs. situate at Village Chikanghar Taluka Kalyan, Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc Kalyan West, District Thane 421 301 (referred to as the ‘larger property’).

3. Under a registered Indenture of Lease dated 24th April 1968 (Arst Lease Deed), one Mr. Madharao Narayan Mahesh, the owner of the larger property, granted rights to the Respondent No.1 to lease land admeasuring 4060 sq.yds bearing survey No. 89, Hissa No. 1 for 50 years on monthly rent of ₹ 200/- per month (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”).

4. Under another registered Indenture of Lease Madhavrao Narayan Mahesh dated 16th July 1971 (second Lease Deed), granted rights to Respondent No.1 to lease an area admeasuring

2115.5 sq.yds bearing survey no. 88 Hissa No.1 for 75 years.

5. The Appellants acquired the larger property by a Deed of Conveyance dated 28th August 2014 from the original owners and accordingly, was entitled to recover the land from the Respondent No.1 as the 50 year lease period expired on 23rd April 2018 and the second lease was terminated by notice.

6. The Respondent No.1 instituted a Civil Suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, Dist. Thane for speciAc performance and declaration that the Sale Deed dated 28th August 2014 executed in favour of the Appellant is null and void. The Court was pleased to allow the Exhibit 5 application for interim injunction in favor of the Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc Respondents and against the Appellants, thereby, restraining them from dispossessing the Respondent without due process of law and from creating any obstruction in running the school pending the Anal adjudication.

7. The Appellants accordingly instituted a Special Civil Suit bearing No. 18 of 2023 before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan, Dist. Thane seeking recovery of possession of the Suit property and permanent injunction from creating third party interest against the Respondents. By the impugned Order, the Ld. Trial Court declined to grant interim injunction restraining the Respondent from creating third party rights in the suit property. Consequently, compelling the Appellants to Ale the present the Appeal. Submissions by the Appellants

8. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants, submits that by an Order dated 2nd August 2022 passed in Exhibit 5 Application in Special Civil Suit No. 194 of 2017, the Ld. Trial Court has restrained the Appellants from creating any third-party rights in this Suit property. However, the same Trial Court denied a similar relief to the Appellants against the Respondents, in effect, permitted the Respondents to create third party rights pending Anal adjudication. According to him, such an approach is contrary to law, equity and good conscience. Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc

9. It is submitted that permitting the Respondents to create the third-party interest would result in multiplicity of proceedings, compelling the Appellants to initiate further litigation against subsequent transferees, thereby causing irreparable injury. It is contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Respondents’ case rests upon misleading and fabricated facts, and that there was no justiAcation for refusing interim protection.

10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Appellant acquired right, title and interest in the Suit property under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 28th August 2014, which remains valid and subsisting. These rights, he submits, deserve protection pending Anal adjudication.

11. Respondent No.1 was a lessee under a Lease Deed dated 24th April 1968 for a period of 50 years, which expired on 23rd April

2018. Upon expiry, Respondent No. 1 continued in possession merely as a tenant holding over and was legally bound to hand over vacant possession in terms of the Lease. Continued occupation, it is submitted, amounts to breach of the lease conditions, rendering the Respondent an unauthorized occupant.

12. Mr. Godbole further contends that payment of municipal taxes does not regularize or legalize unauthorized constructions. The Respondents have not placed on record any material to substantiate the claim that institutions are being run by them or Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc that 1200 students are studying therein.

13. The alleged agreement dated 7th March 1994, relied upon by the Respondents, is unregistered and, according to the Appellants, fabricated. It is submitted that such unregistered agreement cannot negate the rights acquired under a registered conveyance. The Respondents have also allegedly undertaken constructions without requisite permissions.

14. The Appellants being bonaAde purchasers without notice of the alleged 1994 Agreement, followed due process of Law. The pendency of Special Civil Suit bearing No. 194 of 2017 Aled by the Respondents is stated to be independent and distinct from the present suit.

15. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.1 has failed to pay rent under the Lease Deed dated 24th April 1968 as well as the Lease Deed dated 16th July 1971 since 1994, and that the Lease Deed dated 10th August 1971 stands duly terminated by legal notice. The Ld. Trial Court, however, erroneously proceeded on the basis that the Appellants had suppressed the 1994 Agreement and held that the lease continued to subsist. The apprehension regarding the alleged impact on 1200 students, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is speculative and misplaced.

16. On these grounds, it is urged that the ld. Trial Court erred in refusing interim relief restraining the Respondents from creating Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc any third-party rights. Submissions by the Respondents

17. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the Respondents, opposed the Appeal, contending that the Appellants suppressed material facts. According to him, the Appellants were well aware of the Agreement dated 7th March 1994 executed by Smt. Vatsalabai Saraf in favour of Respondent No.1. He relies upon the reply dated 28th June 2017 to the Appellants’ notice wherein the said Agreement was annexed.

18. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1 had earlier instituted Special Civil Suit bearing No. 194 of 2017 for speciAc performance of the 1994 Agreement, prior in time to the present Suit No.18 of 2023. Despite knowledge of such proceedings, the Appellant failed to disclose the same in their plaint, thereby acting mala Ade. Reliance is placed upon paragraphs 31, 32, 35, 36 and 37 of the impugned Order.

19. Learned Advocate contends that the 1994 Agreement has neither been challenged nor declared invalid in any proceedings. It is also submitted that there is no material to demonstrate that the Respondents intend to create third-party rights. Reference is made to observations in Appeal from Order No. 240 of 2023 dated 6th September 2023, wherein the Court noted that the Appellants appeared to have knowledge of the pre-emption Agreement. Priyanka 4-asao-986-23-F(1).doc

20. It is urged that a party guilty of suppression is not entitled to discretionary relief. He relies upon the following Judgments in support of his contention: i. Ramjas Foundation and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.1 ii. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors.2 iii. Mahadev Lingarkar vs. Shamrao Kesarkar3 iv. Faki Ibrahim vs. Faki Mohiddin4 v. Sastha Kumarswamy vs. Joseph Alasius & Ors.5 Analysis and Findings:

21. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, including the impugned Order dated 3rd May 2023, the following conclusions emerge:

22. The Ld. Trial Court restrained the Appellants from creating third party rights in the Suit Property in Special Civil Suit No.18 of 2023, yet declined to grant similar relief against the Respondents. When both parties assert competing rights over the same property and their respective Suits are pending adjudication, equity demands that neither side be permitted to alter the status quo by creating third-party interests pending trial. 1 2 3 4 5