IMPORTANT POINT
Court which passes decree for specific performance retains control over such decree even after decree has been passed.

Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff, in somewhat extraordinary circumstances, against the judgment and decree passed in the suit instituted for specific performance of agreement of sale.

2. The plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and so was the defendant. The defendant owned a house property situated at Road No.17 of Jubilee Hills locality at Hyderabad, standing on a plot of land of an extent of 1,147 sq.yds. The defendant has purchased the said house property through a registered sale deed bearing No.5426/2002 executed on 27.9.2002. The said house property was offered for sale for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,31,00,000 (Rupees Eight Crores Thirty One Lakhs Only) and accepting the .same the plaintiff firm paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000 upfront as token advance through a cheque bearing No.024816 dated 23.12.2009 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. The defendant firm acknowledged the receipt of the said money by passing on a receipt on 23.12.2009 stipulating the terms and conditions mutually agreed to by and between the parties. The plaintiff firm was required to pay a further sum of Rs.2,35,000 within ten days time. It was agreed by the defendant to execute the necessary sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration within three months from 23.12.2009. It is also stipulated that, if the plaintiff firm fails to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,35,000 within 10 to 15 days, the token advance amount will be cancelled. According to the plaintiff, the house property in question was mortgaged earlier in favour of South Indian Bank by the defendant and the said bank raised a demand for payment of a sum of Rs.l,58,00,000. Therefore, the plaintiff has asserted that, it has obtained a demand draft in favour of South Indian Bank in a sum of Rs.l,58,00,000 on 6.1.2010, as desired by the defendant and he has also drawn a cheque for a sum of Rs. 77,00,000 in favour of the defendant firm representing the balance amount of Rs.2,35,000 agreed to be paid on 23.12.2009. However, the defendant firm has declined to entertain the plaintiff and consequently it did not accept the demand draft and the cheque set out supra. It is the case of the plaintiff that, on 22.1.2010 they got issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant firm to perform its part of the obligation by executing registered sale deed duly conveying the title to the house property agreed to be sold by the defendant after receiving the balance sale consideration amount within a month’s time. But however, it appears, the defendant started negotiating with third party for sale of the house property in question and thus started creating a third party interests in the house property agreed to be sold by the defendant. In those set of circumstances, suit O.S.No.47 of 2010 came to be instituted on 29.01.2010 seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Directing the defendant firm to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff firm by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.8,16,00,000 (rupees eight crores sixteen lakhs) and hand over the vacant possession of the suit Schedule property, failing which the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to execute the registered Sale deed on behalf of the defendant firm in favour of the plaintiff firm and put him in possession of the suit schedule property.

(ii) to award the cost of the suit.

(iii) to grant any other relief or relief’s which the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper In the Circumstances of the case the interest of justice.”

3. It will also be appropriate to notice that the plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application No.393 of 2010 in the said suit seeking grant of an injunction to restrain the defendant firm from alienating the suit property or creating third party interests thereon. It will be-appropriate to notice that, on behalf of the defendant firm, Sri Dharma Teja, the Managing Partner has filed a detailed co