Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Saketa Vaksana LLP & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Kaukutla Sarala & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9483 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21349 of 2019) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9484 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21357 of 2019)
Decided On : 17-12-2019
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 – Temporary Injunction – vacation of – Agreement to sell – There are seriously disputed questions of fact involved in this matter – High Court has already granted a Temporary Injunction restraining Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in suit property till disposal of suit – Interest of Appellant – Developer has been sufficiently protected with respect to ownership of suit property – Orders passed by Division Bench of High Court, whereby Temporary Injunction restraining Respondents from interfering with possession of Appellant – Developer over suit property has been vacated, affirmed. (Paras 16, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Division Bench held that there is no documentary evidence to prima facie show that Appellant – Developer is in physical possession of suit property. Furthermore, issue whether Appellant – Developer has paid part consideration for the entire suit property was required to be determined in the trial. The division bench took the view that Appellant – Developer had not made out a prima facie case for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Respondents being lawful owners of the suit property, granting such an injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them. Consequently, the Temporary Injunction restraining Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of Appellant – Developer in suit property was vacated. Appellant – Developer has challenged Interim Orders dated 14.08.2019 by way of the present Civil Appeals.
Findings of Court:
High Court has already granted a Temporary Injunction restraining Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of Suit. The interest of the Appellant – Developer has been sufficiently protected with respect to ownership of suit property.
Result : Civil Appeals dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the appellants, affirming the division bench of the High Court's order that vacated the temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the appellant-developer over the suit property (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that an injunction cannot be granted against a lawful owner of the property, and since the respondents are the lawful owners, granting such an injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to them [judgement_subject].
The Court noted that there are seriously disputed questions of fact, including whether possession of the suit property was handed over to the appellant and whether the appellant paid the full consideration for the entire property (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the interest of the appellant-developer has been sufficiently protected through the interim orders issued by the trial court and the High Court, which restrained the respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in the suit property until final disposal (!) .
The Court directed that the pending trial, which involves these disputed factual issues, be expedited and disposed of within a year, but did not express any opinion on the merits of the case at this interim stage (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the observations made are at an interim stage and do not constitute a final adjudication on the merits of the case (!) .
The appellant's offer to deposit a specified amount in court was rejected by the respondents, and the Court noted the serious disputes regarding the consideration paid and possession handed over (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court upheld the principle that lawful ownership rights must be respected and that interim measures should not prejudice the rights of lawful owners, especially when factual disputes remain unresolved [judgement_subject].
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed by the Appellants to challenge the Interim Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed in I.A. No. 1/2019 and I.A. No. 2/2019 filed in CMA No. 646/2019 by the High Court of Telangana.
2. The factual background is that the Appellant – Developer and the Respondent – Landowners entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017, whereby the Respondents agreed to sell agricultural land comprising of 54 acres 13 guntas situated in Turkapalli Village, Shamirpet Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District to the Appellant – Developer. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 46,00,000/ per acre.
The land was divided into 5 schedules, and each schedule of land was to be sold to the Appellant – Developer upon payment of the proportionate sale consideration.
Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 17.11.2017 stated that physical possession of the entire land was handed over to the Appellant – Developer on the day of execution of the Agreement.
The Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 was an unregistered document executed on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 100. The Stamp Duty on this Agreement was paid by the Appellant – Developer on 27.08.2018.
3. Out of the total extent of land, the Respondents executed four registered Agreements of Sale cum General Power of Attorney with respect to 36 acres 21½ guntas of land in favour of the Appellant – Developer. The first two Agreements of Sale were executed on 03.01.2018; the third on 24.03.2018; and the fourth on 31.03.2018.
The Appellant – Developer submitted that it has paid Rs. 17,25,00,000/ for the aforesaid four Agreements of Sale.
The Respondents have seriously disputed this submission, and stated that an amount of only Rs. 14,25,00,000/ was paid by the Appellant – Developer.
This gave rise to disputes between the parties for payment of the balance consideration for land admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas (“suit property”).
4. The Appellant – Developer filed a Suit for Specific Performance bearing O.S. No. 213/2018 seeking Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (“Trial Court”).
The Appellant/Plaintiff prayed that the Respondents be directed to execute the Sale Deed for the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas; and provide ingress and egress to the land admeasuring 36 acres 21½ guntas for which the registered Agreements of Sale cum GPA had been executed.
5. The Respondents filed the Written Statement cum Counter Claim seeking payment of Rs. 2,55,72,500/ towards the balance consideration for the 36 acres 21½ guntas of land already transferred in favour of the Appellant – Developer. The Respondents further claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ towards the damage caused by the Appellant – Developer to the suit property.
The said Suit is pending final determination before the Trial Court.
6. The Appellant – Developer filed two I.A.s in the Suit praying for Temporary Injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC before the Trial Court.
I.A. No. 766/2018 was filed for a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Appellant –Developer over the entire land admeasuring 54 acres 13 guntas.
I.A. No. 767/2018 was filed for a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating any thirdparty interest in the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas.
7. In I.A. No. 766/2018, the Respondent/Defendants disputed the possession of the Appellant – Developer over the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas. They produced a Rent Agreement to show that a parcel of land admeasuring 12,000 sq. feet was in the possession of a third party.
However, in the Agreements of Sale executed by the Respondents in favour of the Appellant – Developer, it was mentioned that possession of the entire land admeasuring 54 acres 13 guntas was handed over to the Appellant – Developer at th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
