JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant in CMA.No.45 of 2021, Sri Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants Nos.2 & 3 in CMA.No.43/2021 and Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff in CMA.No.45 of 2021 and perused the material on record.

2. The appellants in CMA.No.43 of 2021 are defendants Nos.2 & 3 and the appellant in CMA No.45 of 2021 is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is shown as 1st respondent in both the appeals. These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) challenging the judgment and order, dated 04.12.2020, passed by the IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in I.A.No.334 of 2017 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in O.S.No.108 of 2017 ( G.Giridhar v. S.Chandra Mohan Reddy and others), by which, I.A.No.334 of 2017 was allowed granting interim injunction restraining the respondents therein, their agents, successors or anybody on their behalf from executing or creating any registered document of alienation or encumbrance in respect of petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

3. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the plaintiff/1st respondent filed O.S.No.108 of 2017 seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11.03.2014 against the 1st defendant directing him to perform his part of the agreement by receiving the entire balance of sale consideration in respect of the suit schedule property and in case of his failure to do so, to enable the plaintiff/1st respondent to get the same performed through the process of court and to deliver vacant possession of the property.

4. The suit has been filed on the pleadings inter alia that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule land and he had executed agreement of sale, dated 11.03.2014 in plaintiff’s favour. Out of total sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-, the 1st defendant received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the date of execution of the agreement of sale towards advance and had agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.74,00,000/- in two instalments, viz., Rs.18,50,000/- within 25 days, i.e., on or before 05.04.2014, and Rs.55,50,000/- within 5 months, i.e., on or before 05.09.2014 from the date of agreement of sale. The plaintiff offered to pay the balance of sale consideration as per the schedule fixed under the agreement of sale, but on one or other reason the 1st defendant was not ready to receive the same, however, the 1st defendant collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.06.2014, Rs.5,00,000/- on 05.04.2016 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.04.2016 from the plaintiff towards part of balance sale consideration by making necessary part payment endorsements on the respective dates of receipt on the reverse of the first page of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff had been repeatedly asking the 1st defendant to receive the remaining balance sale consideration and to execute the registered sale deed in his favour, but in spite thereof as also the legal notice, dated 29.10.2017, issued and served, the 1st defendant continued postponing execution of the sale deed on one or other pretext. The plaintiff pleaded that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

5. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendants Nos.2 & 3/the appellants in CMA No.43 of 2021 under a registered sale deed, dated 26.10.2019. Consequently, the plaintiff amended the plaint and impleaded the defendants Nos.2 and 3 as party in the suit.

6. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff/1st respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction, restraining the 1st respondent, his representatives, successors or anybody on his behalf from executing or creating any registered document of alienation or encumbrance in respect of p