ORDER :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Since these Interlocutory Applications pertain to the same schedule property and arise from a common judgment and decree, dated 04.10.2024 passed by the X Additional District Judge’s Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), this Court is inclined to dispose of these Interlocutory Applications through a common order.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.15 of 2025 has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the Petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the Trial Court.

3. I.A.No.2 of 2025 in A.S.No.15 of 2025 has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating any 3^rd party interest in the suit schedule property in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the Trial Court.

4. I.A.No.2 of 2025 in A.S.No.18 of 2025 has been filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in O.S.No.09 of 2018 on the file of the Trial Court.

5. Brief averments of the affidavits filed by the Petitioners/Appellants accompanied with both the petitions, are as follows:

(a) The Petitioners filed O.S.No.77/2013 before the X Additional District Judge’s Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, seeking specific performance of a sale agreement dated 19.08.2008 or, alternatively, a refund of Rs.19,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum.

(b) The Respondents/Defendants, who are brothers and the absolute owners of the suit property (Ac.5-59 ½ cents in Kosuru Village, Krishna District), had agreed to sell the property to the Petitioners' parents for Rs.21,40,000/- @ Rs.3,82,000/- per acre. Payments were made as advances, including Rs. 15,00,000/- on 19.08.2008, with an agreement to pay the balance within a year. The Petitioners have paid Rs. 19,00,000/- and have been in possession of the property as part performance. The Respondents have not executed the sale deed despite the Petitioners' willingness to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 2,40,000/-. The Respondents have attempted to change the revenue records. On 13.07.2014, while working on the property, the Petitioners were obstructed and threatened by the Respondents, prompting them to file a complaint, but no police action was taken. The Respondents contested the suit, alleging no landlord-tenant relationship, claiming the agreement and payments were forged, and asserting that the suit agreement is subject to stamp duty. They also stated that no possession was delivered to the Petitioners under the agreement. Despite the substantial consideration received by the Respondents, they filed a separate suit (O.S.No.10/2018) for an injunction. The Petitioners also filed a suit (O.S.No.9/2018), seeking a permanent injunction.

(c) All suits were consolidated, and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.77/2013. The Trial Court partially decreed O.S.No.77/2013, granting alternative relief for a refund of Rs.19,00,000/- but denying specific performance. It also passed a decree for the Respondents' permanent injunction in O.S.No.10/2018 and dismissed the Petitioners' injunction suit in O.S.No.9/2018. The Petitioners are appealing the denial of specific performance and other judgments. The Trial Court erred in rejecting specific performance based on delayed filing, which was not argued by the Respondents. The agreement terms and the Respondents' actions show that time was not of the essence. The Petitioners paid a significant portion of the consideration and filed the suit within the limitation period. The Trial Court's denial of specific performance should be overturned, considering the doctrine of part performance. The Respondents failed to pr