JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. By consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The appellant/original defendant No.7 to 27 are challenging the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No.22/2018 dated 31/01/2022 below Exhibit 63 in an application by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that an agreement of joint venture was executed on 30/12/2006 between deceased Jagdish Khungar along with plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 at one part and defendant Nos.4 to 6 then minor through their natural guardian i.e. mother (defendant No.2) on other part. Further contention of the plaintiffs was that there is another agreement of joint venture dated 24/03/2011 was executed between one deceased Jagdish Khungar along with plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 at one part and defendant Nos.1 to 3 at another part and plaintiff Nos.5 to 7 on other part. The subject matter of the suit was field Survey No.10603 admeasuring 4 H 4 R situated at Wani, District Yavatmal. 4. The plaintiff filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No.22/2018 for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of money. The claim of the plaintiff is that the suit property may be handed over to the plaintiffs and the sale deeds more specifically described in the plaint may be declared as void. The appellants herein (defendant Nos.7 to 15) the purchasers of the suit property filed their written statements. They denied the right of the plaintiffs to file the suit. As plaintiffs are strangers to the properties and the transactions, they have no cause of action for instituting the suit. Similar is the stand taken by defendant Nos.16 to 27. The plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction. By this application, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 were not permitted to alienate any of the plots from the stock in trade. They also claimed that the sale deeds for which plots in question were sold, were illegal. They further prayed that defendants may be restrained from selling the plots in stock and restraining defendant Nos.7 to 27 from recording illegal sale of plots on their names in Revenue Record by issuing temporary injunction and from restraining the defendants from creating any third party interests in the sold plots and making changes in mutation entries as regards the said plots. 5. The defendants/ appellants herein filed their respective replies to the application for the aforesaid application. They stated that there is no prima facie case in favour of plaintiffs and the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos. 7 to 15 and 16 to 27 claimed that they are the bonafide purchasers of the plots out of the suit property and also claimed rejection of plaint under Section 41 (h), (i) and (j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 6. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kelapur vide order dated 30/01/2021 held that great hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs and if the subject matter changes, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiffs. The main ground of challenge to the said order is that the learned Trial Court was in error in allowing the application of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the agreements dated 30/12/2006 and 24/03/2011 between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not registered and the same are executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper. 7. It is submitted by learned Counsel for appellant that defendant Nos.7 to 15 and 16 to 27 are the bonafide purchasers and plaintiffs are strangers to the plots in the suit property. It was not shown how irreparable loss would cause to the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court totally erred in holding that the plaintiffs had legal rights and interests over the suit land in order to carry out its developments on the basis of their privity of contract with defendant Nos.1 to 6. While holding this, the learned Trial Court totally ignored the fact that the document is unregistered one and cannot be said to have clothed the plaintiffs with any enforceable rights. As such, the bonafide purchasers/defendants cannot be deprived of their right of ownership of the suit plots and development of the same. The learned Trial Court has not considered the hardship that will be caused to the defendant Nos.7 to 27, the bonafide purchasers. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this fact that the defendants are bonafide purchasers and some of them have started construction on the plots and some of them have taken steps for obtaining loan. By the said impugned order, their constructions has been stopped and they are not able to enjoy their properties despite being bonafide purchasers. 8. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this fact that the defendants are bonafide purchasers and some of them have started construction on the plots and some of them have taken steps for obtaining loan. By the said impugned order, their constructions has been stopped and they are not able to enjoy their properties despite being bonafide purchasers. 8. The respondent Nos.1 to 7 (original plaintiffs) filed their reply and submitted that respondent Nos.8 to 13 (original defendant Nos.1 to 7) executed more than 40 sale deeds without any compliance to the agreement behind back of the answering respondents. Interference in the impugned judgment will amount to multiplicity of proceedings and same shall further delay and deprive the answering respondents from justice. 9. I have heard both the parties. Perused the impugned order and considered citations placed on record. Admittedly, the alleged document of development deed is unregistered document. The defendant Nos.7 to 27 are purchasers of the plots from original defendant Nos.1 to 6. Suit is filed by plaintiffs for declaration, temporary injunction and recovery of money. There was an agreement of joint venture executed on 30/12/2006. The learned Trial Court after considering the documents placed on record partly allowed application Exhibit 63 which was filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction and also seeking prayer to restrain defendant Nos.1 to 6 from selling plots out of stock in trade and restraining defendant Nos.7 to 27 from selling out plots recorded in their respective names at Revenue Record and not to carry out construction thereon and not to create any third party interest over the suit land. By this order, defendants were temporarily restrained from alienating, carrying construction and creating any kind of third party interest over respective plots out of suit land recorded in their names either individual capacity or jointly as the case may be during pendency of the suit. Other relief claimed by the plaintiff stood rejected. The main ground of challenge by the appellants herein is that the alleged deeds of joint venture/development between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not registered. Other relief claimed by the plaintiff stood rejected. The main ground of challenge by the appellants herein is that the alleged deeds of joint venture/development between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not registered. As the unregistered documents cannot be said to have clothed, the plaintiffs with any enforceable right whatsoever, those findings recorded by the learned Judge that plaintiffs had legal rights and interests over the suit land in order to carry out its development on the basis of their privity of contract with defendant Nos.1 to 6 is unsustainable. Consequently, the present purchasers/appellants cannot be deprived of their rights of ownership of the suit plot and development of the same. Secondly, the defendant Nos.7 to 15 and 16 to 27 are bonafide purchasers by registered sale deed whereas the plaintiffs are strangers to the plots in the suit property and have no title over the plots. Thirdly, plaintiffs have not established any prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction nor established rejection of said application will cause prejudice to them. On the basis of unregistered document, they want to injunct the bonafide purchasers. 10. After considering the order, prima facie it appears that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have deposited amount in the account of Government being 75% valuation of suit land in compliance of said permission granted by the Collector Yavatmal. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 also have not disputed their signatures appearing on both alleged documents dated 30/12/2006 and 24/03/2011. It is also not disputed that at the relevant time, defendant Nos.4 to 6 were minor and defendant No.2 shown to have executed the same for herself and on behalf of those minor defendants being their natural guardian. Though the document is styled as ‘joint ventures’, it is for development of the suit land which can be clear from the recital in the agreement. The said development was to be carried out in accordance with sanction order of Collector passed on 06/02/2013. As per defendant Nos.1 to 3, collection of funds on their part from deceased Jagdish Kumar, plaintiff and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 being hand loan and money lending transaction. They have also filed counter claim with regard to illegal selling of plots by the plaintiffs without their authorization. As per defendant Nos.1 to 3, collection of funds on their part from deceased Jagdish Kumar, plaintiff and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 being hand loan and money lending transaction. They have also filed counter claim with regard to illegal selling of plots by the plaintiffs without their authorization. The learned Trial Court observed as under: “No doubt, there is lack of plaint pleadings to some extent on the point of details of development of the suit land in the light of mutual agreements took place among those parties. However, the fact remains on record that, the plaintiffs have got legal rights and interest over suit land in order to carry out its development on the basis of their privity of contract with defendant Nos.1 to 6.” 11. In this regard, the learned Counsel for appellants relied on Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and others, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 646 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that exchange deed by which the ownership of their respective properties is transferred, it needs registration. Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act defines “exchange”. It is clear from this provisions that where either of the properties in exchange are immovable or one of them is immovable and the value of anyone is Rs.100/- or more, the provision of Section 54 of the TP Act relating to sale of immovable property would apply. The mode of transfer in case of exchange is the same as in the case of sale. It is thus clear that in the case of exchange of property of value of Rs.100/- and above, it can be made only by a registered instrument. In Section 49 of the Registration Act, is perused which reads as under: “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. It is thus clear that in the case of exchange of property of value of Rs.100/- and above, it can be made only by a registered instrument. In Section 49 of the Registration Act, is perused which reads as under: “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. - No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:” Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered and Section 49 of the Registration Act imposes bar on the admissibility of an unregistered document and deals with the documents that are required to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 12. The learned Counsel for respondents relied on judgment in Appeal from Order No.590/2011 passed by this Court in Lodha Estate Private Limited through Director Shri Rajendra Lodha Vs. Shri Kishan Waman Bhoir and others, this Court held that 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. In view of the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for respondents, it is a matter of evidence whether parties acted upon the alleged agreement dated 30/12/2006 or there is any breach on the part of either of the party that would be the question to be decided after adducing evidence. As such, it would be appropriate to grant temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 6 to the extent of unsold plots that there should not be any creation of any third party interest till the pendency of the suit. 13. The learned Trial Court held that plaintiffs have pre-existing right over the suit land. As such, it would be appropriate to grant temporary injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 6 to the extent of unsold plots that there should not be any creation of any third party interest till the pendency of the suit. 13. The learned Trial Court held that plaintiffs have pre-existing right over the suit land. The learned Trial Court observed that the agreement in question seems to have executed for making development in the suit plot and defendants have merely raised objection about their un-registration, but failed to bring into notice of the Court legal provisions indicating that, those agreements came under the ambit of Section 17 of the Registration Act, for compulsory registration purpose. So far as the claim of defendant Nos.7 to 27, the learned Trial Court held that subsequent purchaser during pendency of suit, prima facie indicates that they are intending to dilute acquirable monitory benefits of the plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis of terms and conditions set out in last agreement. While discarding contention of the defendant Nos.7 to 27, the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that they are bonafide purchasers and purchased property by registered sale deeds. Some of them commenced construction over the plots. Their names are also mutated. The learned Trial Court has not considered the hardship and loss which they would suffer. These purchasers would suffer by this order in injunction application. Section 17(1) (b) does not apply only in cases where transfer is effected but comes into play as soon as right is created in any party. If Clause-5 of joint venture agreement dated 30/12/2006 is perused, by this Clause, the plaintiffs were entitled to receive half of the sale amount or earnest amount against each of the plot agreed to be sold out. The plaintiffs herein are entitled half of the amount if plot is being sold. As such, rights are created in favour of plaintiffs and therefore the said document is compulsorily registrable. Section 17 (b) makes it clear that in respect of non testamentary instruments would purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest would be registrable. 14. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the loss which would cause to the purchasers who are bonafide purchasers of the plots. 14. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the loss which would cause to the purchasers who are bonafide purchasers of the plots. Some of them have commenced construction houses and some of them have submitted their map for sanction. In view of the judgment in Lodha Estate Private Limited through Director Shri Rajendra Lodha (supra) when party acted on unregistered document they cannot raise plea that document is not admissible for want of registration. Even if, this position is assumed to be correct in respect of defendant Nos.1 to 6, the defendant Nos.7 to 27 were purchased the property by registered sale deed can not be responsible any act done by respondent Nos.1 to 6. If at all, plaintiff succeed in the suit on the basis of unregistered documents, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 which required to compensate or make the loss good as they have already received the amount from the appellants herein (defendant Nos.7 to 27). The defendant Nos.7 to 27 duly established that they have prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in their favour. In view of the above discussion, Appeal Against Order No.28/2022 and 17/2023 are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i) Appeal Against Order No. 27/2022 is allowed. ii) Appeal Against Order No.28/2022 and Appeal Against Order No.17/2023 are rejected. iii) The order passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kelapur, District Yavatmal in Special Civil Suit No.22/2018 dated 31/01/2022 below Exhibit 63 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of defendant Nos.7 to 27. Further, defendant Nos.7 to 27 are directed to intimate the Court if any third party interest is created in future by taking appropriate steps. iv) Defendant Nos.1 to 6 temporarily restrained from alienating the remaining unsold plots or creating any third party interest or erecting any construction over the unsold plots out of the suit land.