Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Puluputhuri Venkataramana S/o P. Venkata Ramaiah – Petitioner
Versus
Galiveti Siva Rami Reddy S/o G. Narayana Reddy – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 2559, 2652 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2023
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 - Seeking Specific performance - agreement of sale - Claim of Compensation - Peaceful possession - Trespassed - Whether balance of convenience lies in favor of granting injunction or not that is whether justice would be best served by an order of injunction - Held, Neither Trial Court nor Appellate Court properly appreciated or considered principles qua granting of injunction - When documents filed by respective parties are available courts below should consider same and then record case balance of convenience and irreparable loss - As can be seen from orders only consideration of both courts below is at respectively - When an appeal is filed appellate court being final finding court should be more careful and cautious - Appellate Court should have kept in mind principle laid down in Wander's case Appellate Court normally cannot substitute its opinion unless trial court committed manifest illegality - Petitions Allowed.
ORDER :
1. The 3rd defendant in the suit filed the above two revisions against separate Orders dated 21.10.2022 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2022 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2022.
2. The suit in O.S. No. 77 of 2021 was filed by the 1st respondent in Civil Revision Petition being the plaintiff, seeking Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.05.2012. The plaintiff is son of 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is daughter of Chandramohan Reddy, who is another son of 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is stranger to the family.
3. In the plaint, it was inter-alia contended that the 1st defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 25.10.1993. The vendor of the 1st defendant purchased the property under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 1494 of 1986 and 1495 of 1986. The plaintiff purchased the schedule property under unregistered agreement of sale dated 18.05.2012 by paying entire sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The 1st defendant orally delivered the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff on the same day and since the date of execution of agreement, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The 1st defendant also handed over the original document to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff by suspecting the bona-fides of 1st defendant, verified the records and came to know about the registered sale deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant in turn executed the sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant. Hence, the 1st respondent in these Civil Revision Petitions being the plaintiff filed suit, seeking specific performance and other reliefs.
4. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. 264 of 2021 seeking grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 265 of 2021 for grant of injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from alienating the schedule property.
5. The 3rd defendant in the suit, filed counter claim, vide I.A. No. 493 of 2021, seeking ad-interim injunction, restraining the plaintiff in the suit from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property.
6. Trial court by order dated 29.07.2022, granted ad-interim injunction in I.A. No. 493 of 2021. I.A. 264 of 2021 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed, however, by separate Order. Against the dismissal of Order in I.A. No. 264 of 2021, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2022 was filed on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. Against granting of injunction in I.A. No. 493 of 2021, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2022 was filed on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.
7. As stated supra, vide Orders dated 21.10.2022, C.M.A. No. 4 of 2022 was allowed and temporary injunction was granted in I.A. No. 264 of 2021 in O.S. No. 77 of 2021.
C.M.A. No. 5 of 2022 was allowed and the I.A. No. 493 of 2021 was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved by the Order in CMA No. 04 of 2022, C.R.P. No. 2559 of 2022 is filed.
9. Aggrieved by the Order in CMA No. 05 of 2022, C.R.P. No. 2652 of 2022 is filed.
10. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, counsel appearing for revision petitioner and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, counsel appearing for respondent.
11. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner came into possession of the property, pursuant to the sale deed, dated 23.07.2021, executed in his favour, by 2nd defendant in suit. His vendor came into possession of the property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 25.04.2016. Thus, the vendor and thereafter, the petitioner have been in possession of the property since 2016. He would further contend that the pattadar adangal/pahani dated 13.09.2021 and the 1-B extract dated 13.09.2021, which stand in the name of the 2nd defendant prima-facie proved his vendor’s possession over t
To obtain a temporary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm, without conducting a mini trial.
Temporary injunction – Party approaching Court is not entitled to order of injunction as a matter of right – Grant of interim injunction/permanent injunction is discretionary in nature.
A plaintiff's delay in filing a suit impacts the entitlement to injunction and specific performance, as timely prosecution and adherence to evidential requirements are essential for equitable relief.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly, and the importance of forming a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff before gra....
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
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
