Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
U. Durga Prasad Rao, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, JJ.
Sagi Koteswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Jai Bhavani Constructions & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 127 and 166 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2022
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT OF SALE - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF C.P.C. - CRITERIA FOR GRANT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - CONDUCT OF THE PARTY SEEKING INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 13.09.2013, alleging that the defendants sold the property to a third party despite the subsistence of the agreement. The plaintiff sought temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from making further constructions and alienating the property. The trial court dismissed the applications, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case as the execution of the agreement of sale and the passing of consideration were denied by the defendants. The court also found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the defendants as they had already constructed a building on the property and any injunction would cause them irreparable loss. The court further held that the plaintiff's conduct in delaying the filing of the suit and issuing legal notices with false information weighed against the grant of an injunction.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction? 2. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff or the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff's conduct weighed against the grant of an injunction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case on the basis of undisputed facts to obtain a temporary injunction. 2. The balance of convenience must be considered in determining whether to grant a temporary injunction, and the court must weigh the potential harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted against the potential harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted. 3. The conduct of the party seeking the injunction is also a relevant factor in determining whether to grant an injunction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the trial court's order denying the temporary injunctions.
JUDGMENT
G. Ramakrishna Prasad, J. - The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 96 of 2021 is the Appellant in both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and the Defendants are the Respondents.
2. The C.M.A. No. 127 of 2022 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant challenging the Order passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 16.03.2022 in I.A. No. 560 of 2021 in O.S. No. 96 of 2021.
3. The C.M.A. No. 166 of 2022 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant challenging the Order passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 16.03.2022 in I.A. No. 559 of 2021 in O.S. No. 96 of 2021.
4. I.A. No. 560 of 2021 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') seeking Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from making further constructions in the Petition Schedule Property till the disposal of the suit.
5. I.A. No. 559 of 2021 is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. seeking Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the suit.
6. Learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada passed two separate Orders on 16.03.2022 dismissing both the Applications.
7. As the facts are identical and the only difference is in the prayers in the above mentioned two Interlocutory Applications, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals by this Common Order.
8. At the outset, it is to be stated that the observations made while passing this Order, would only be limited for the purpose of disposing the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. It is needless to state that these observations would not bind the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in disposing of the main suit in an uninfluenced manner on merits, as these observations are only at this pre-trial stage.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE:
9.1. The facts that are relevant in the present case are that the Plaintiff/Appellant filed O.S. No. 96 of 2021 seeking Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated 13.09.2013. He had stated in the Plaint that during the subsistence of this Agreement of Sale, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (who are Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) have sold and registered this property in favor of the Respondent No. 3 by way of Sale Deed, dated 29.03.2017 and that the said sale is not binding on the Plaintiff/Appellant on account of the subsistence of the earlier Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013. The Plaintiff/Appellant had stated in the Plaint that the total sale consideration under the Agreement of Sale, dated 13.09.2013 is Rs. 49,50,000/- and that out of the said amount, the Plaintiff/Appellant had advanced an amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the date of execution of Agreement of Sale. He had stated that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to register the Agreement of Sale and receive the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/-.
9.2. It is further stated by the Plaintiff/Appellant that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract to get the Sale Deed registered by paying the remaining sale consideration (Rs. 12,50,000/-), Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are postponing the same on one pretext or the other. He further stated that the registered Sale Deed executed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in favor of the Respondent No. 3, dated 29.03.2017 is a sham one.
9.3. The Plaintiff/Appellant further stated that the Respondent No. 2 got issued a Legal Notice, dated 16.06.2021 to the Plaintiff/Appellant alleging that the Plaintiff/Appellant obtained three blank signed papers and four blank signed cheques from Respondent No. 2 under threat and coercion. The Plaintiff/Appellant also got issued a Legal Notice, dated 01.09.2021 to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 demanding them to execute the Sale Deed in pursuance of the Suit Agreement of Sale and that the Defendants/Respondents managed the Postal Au
In a suit for specific performance, the grant of a temporary injunction is discretionary and depends on the establishment of a strong prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the conduct of ....
Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982, the rights of the appellants in the suit for Specific Performance against the Immovable property is protected under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Ac....
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.
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 court emphasized that failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations justifies the denial of interim injunctions in specific performance cases.
The court establishes criteria for assessing prima facie cases concerning injunctions in property disputes and the necessity of safeguarding interests before final judgment.
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
