A.No.2/2017ANDI.A.No.1/2018

Heard Shri Suresh S.Lokre, learned Advocate for appellant and Shri Anup Seetharama Rao for Shri B.C.Seetharama Rao, learned Advocate for respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the plaint.

3. The application, I.A.No.1/2018 under Section 151 CPC is filed with following prayer:

“That for the reason sworn in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to modify the interim order passed in the above case by passing appropriate directions, in order to protect the possession of the appellant in the Schedule Property pending disposal of the above appeal, in the interest of justice and equity”.

4. By order dated 26.2.2018, this Court admitted this appeal and passed an order of ‘status quo’ on I.A.No.2/2017 with regard to possession. Seeking modification of the said order, I.A.No.1/2018 is filed.

5. Arguing in support of I.A.No.1/2018, Shri Suresh S. Lokre, in substance, submitted that the defendant taking advantage of the order dated 26.2.2018, is making efforts to dispossess plaintiff from suit schedule property. Therefore, the said order may be modified and plaintiff be protected from dispossession, pending disposal of the suit.

6. Facts of the case discernable from the submissions of the learned Counsel Shri Lokre are, plaintiff is the owner in possession of suit schedule property. Defendant offered to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.1,39,30,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). Out of the said amount, defendant paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on 28.11.2016. The balance sale consideration of Rs.1,27,90,700/- excluding tax was sought to be paid by cheque bearing No.0210098 dated 30.11.2016. Plaintiff executed a sale deed on 30.11.2016. On presentation, the cheque for Rs.1,27,90,700/- was dishonoured. The plaintiff has not handed over the possession of the suit schedule property to the defendant. Plaintiff is a nonresident citizen. Her father who is also her power agent is presently residing in the suit schedule property.

7. On 7.1.2017, the plaintiff informed defendant’s husband through an e-mail that defendant’s cheque was dishonoured. She sought to know as to when it could be represented. She also enquired as to why defendant was delaying taking possession of the property. Defendant’s husband immediately replied stating that the loan was about to be sanctioned; the building was not ready to take possession; and that he would review the matter and revert back.

8. Defendant’s husband is a former IAS officer. Taking advantage of plaintiff’s absence in the country, defendant attempted to take possession of the property forcibly compelling the plaintiff to file instant suit for injunction. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC. Though this Court has ordered ‘status quo’ with regard to possession, defendant is making hectic efforts to take possession of the suit schedule property forcibly. Defendant’s husband attempted to trespass into the property on 9.3.2018 and assaulted plaintiff’s father. Plaintiff’s father filed two complaints with the police on the same day. The first complaint was treated as NCR and an FIR was registered based on the second complaint. Defendant’s husband has also filed a complaint on the following day alleging that he was assaulted on 9.3.2018.

9. Thus, Shri Lokre argued that plaintiff is entitled for protection against forcible dispossession and accordingly prayed for suitable modification of ‘status quo’ order.

10. Opposing the application, Shri Anup Seetharama Rao, learned advocate for the defendant submitted that admittedly, the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property on 30.11.2016 and the same is registered in accordance with law. He argued that it is settled in law that once sale deed is executed, transfer of ownership takes place in terms of Section 54