JUDGMENT (Per N.V. Ramana, J.)

This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 15-12-2009, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in I.A.No.4018 of 2008 in O.S. No.665 of 2008 filed by the appellants-plaintiffs praying to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents-defendants, their agents, servants, nominees assigns etc., from alienating/transferring the suit schedule property being Flat Nos. 101, 203, 204, 401, 405, 601 and 602, admeasuring 8684 Sft in Shaheen Heights, constructed on premises bearing Nos. 11-3-848, 11-3-848/1, 11-3-848/2, 11-3-848/3, 11/3/848/4 and 11/3/848/5, totally admeasuring 811 Sq. yds. situated at Mallepally, Hyderabad, in favour of third parties, pending disposal of the suit.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the Development rimes Reports Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 26-11-2005, the appellants and respondent No.1, are entitled to built up area in the ratio of 40:60 i.e., 15 and 10 flats respectively. He further submitted that respondent No.1, as Developer, is entitled to 60% of the built up area i.e. flats, and only in respect of those flats, he is empowered to enter into sale agreements, sell and execute sale deeds, and receive sale consideration from the intending purchasers.

3. He submitted that as respondent No.1 after selling his share of 60% of the built up area, was trying to sell the 40% share of built up area of the appellants, they cancelled the unregistered Power of Attorney executed by them in favour of respondent No.1, by issuing public notice dated 20-01-2007, which fact is not denied by respondent No.1 in the written statement filed by him. He submitted that the Power of Attorney having been cancelled, the only document that still remains in force is the Development Agreement dated 25-11-2005.

4. Since the appellants cancelled the Power of Attorney, respondent No.1 had no power to execute sale deed on their behalf in favour of third parties, and therefore, the Sub Registrar refused to register the sale deed presented by respondent No.1 in favour of third parties. To show that respondent No.1 had unauthorizedly executed sale deeds in respect of their 40% of built up area i.e. 10 flats after canceling the Power of Attorney, the appellants filed documents, namely ten copies of sale deeds, affidavit dated 25-08-2008executed by respondent No.1, obtained by him from the Sub Registrar, Golkonda, under the Right to information Act. In view of this, he submitted that the Court below ought to have granted interim temporary injunction as prayed for.

5. He further submitted that the Court below committed a grave error in not looking into the fact that the General Power of Attorney, and holding that even though the sale deeds executed by respondent No.1 are not registered, but since respondent No.1, as GPA of the appellants had alienated the suit flats in favour of third parties by receiving the sale consideration and also executed sale deeds, the relief of temporary injunction claimed in the present application has become infructuous. He submitted that since the appeal filed by respondent No.1 against the order passed by the Sub Registrar, refusing to register the documents is pending before the District Registrar, there is no valid conveyance or transfer of property made in favour of the purchasers, much less as provided in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, and since the sale is not concluded, it is neither open to respondent No.1 nor the Court below to hold that third party rights have crept in.

6. He further submitted that even if the appeal filed by respondent No.1 is allowed, having regard to the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Registration Act, the documents do not automatically stand registered, because respondent No.1 has to appear before the Sub Registrar and represent the documents for registration, and thereupon, the Sub Registrar, shall follow the procedure prescr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document