Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Telangana) 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICDATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA : HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
Garikipati Bulli Nayana - Appellant
Versus
M/s. M.S.R. Housing and Resorts Private Limited rep. by its Managing Director and others - Respondents
I.A. Nos.3 of 2020 In/And Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.188 and 189 of 2020
Decided On : 30-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri V. Hariharan.
For the Respondents: Sri M.V.S. Sridhar, Sri A. Narasimha Rao, Sri P. Venugopal, Senior Counsel and Smt. Rachana S. Waddepalli.

Point of Law :
usage of old stamp papers could be a circumstance that can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of an agreement, but the Court held that that cannot be a clinching evidence. It observed that there is a possibility that a layman unfamiliar with legal provisions relating to stamps, bonafide thinking that he could use the old unused stamp papers lying with him for preparation of the document and accordingly use the old stamp papers. It therefore held that the agreement of sale in the said case executed on old stamp papers was valid

Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 - Ex parte ad interim injunctions - Suit for specific performance of Agreement - Readiness and willingness to perform contract Whether transactions collusive in nature - Issues raised in both the appeals are interconnected, the respondents are one and the same and the appellant in C.M.A. is the father of the appellant in C.M.A - Also the evidence adduced in the trial court is almost identical - Therefore these CMAs are being disposed off by this common order -
Finding of the Court:
view of the Court below that no prejudice would be caused to the appellants if the interim injunction granted by it is vacated, is not correct and that on the facts and circumstances of these Appeals, the appellants had not only made out a prima facie case, but there is balance of convenience also in their favour and irreparable injury would be caused if the respondents were permitted to alienate the suit schedule properties pending the suit- prima-facie these transactions are collusive in nature between the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and and Construction Private Limited represented by Ms. Kilaru Alekya on account of the close relationship between them and the respondents 1, 3 and 4 cannot be allowed to get away with these transfers - So, pending the disposal of the suits, we hold that transfer of right, title and interest of 1st respondent, if any, conveyed to Dr. Kilaru Panduranga Prasad and M/s A.K.Estates and Construction Private Limited represented by Ms. Kilaru Alekya i.e. the purchasers under the above documents, shall also stand suspended -
Result: CMA are dismissed

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

Heard Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.V.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 4, Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs. Rachana S. Waddepalli, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. The issues raised in both the appeals are interconnected, the respondents are one and the same and the appellant in C.M.A.No.188 of 2020 is the father of the appellant in C.M.A.No.189 of 2020. Also the evidence adduced in the trial court is almost identical. Therefore these CMAs are being disposed off by this common order.

The background facts

3. The 1st respondent is a Private Limited Company. Respondents 2 to 4 are its Directors. The 4th respondent is the daughter of the 3rd respondent and respondents 2 to 4 are related to each other.

4. The 1st respondent Company is engaged in real estate business.

5. The appellants filed the said suits on 10.5.2018 before the Civil vacation Judge, Mahboobnagar during the summer vacation of May 2018 for specific performance of agreements for sale dt.21.11.2016 and alternatively for damages of Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.80,00,000/- respectively. They were later transferred to the Court of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar and numbered as O.S.No.38 of 2018 and O.S.No.39 of 2018.

6. Thus the appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.38 of 2018 and O.S.No.39 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar.

The case of the appellants/plaintiffs in the suits

7. In the suits, the appellants contended that the two agreements dt.21.11.2016 (both marked as Ex.P1 in IA.No.255 of 2019 in O.S.No. 38 of 2018 and also in I.A.No.256 of 2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2018), one in favour of the appellant in C.M.A.No.188 of 2020 and the other in favour of the appellant in C.M.A.No.189 of 2020, were executed for sale of a number of plots mentioned in the respective schedules to the plaints in Siddapur Village, Kothur Mandal of Ranga Reddy District (previously Mahboobnagar District); the vendee in these agreements of sale was the 1st respondent Company represented by its Managing Director, the 2nd respondent; that prior to entering into the sale agreements, respondents 1 and 2 informed the appellants that the plots, which were subject matter of the said agreements, were having approved layout issued by the competent authority; that the consideration for the purchase of plots in favour of the appellant in C.M.A.No.188 of 2020 was Rs.80,31,600/-, of which Rs.20,00,000/- was paid to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent on 21.11.2016 at Hyderabad towards earnest money and advance out of the total agreed sale consideration; that the total agreed sale consideration for the plots which were subject matter of the agreement in favour of the appellant in C.M.A.No.189 of 2020 is Rs.33,87,200/- and the appellant therein had paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent on 21.11.2016 at Hyderabad towards earnest money and advance out of the total agreed sale consideration; that the balance of sale consideration under the said agreements was to be paid by the respective appellants to the 1st respondent by March, 2018 and sale deeds were to be got executed and registered in their favour or in favour of their nominees.

8. They alleged that though they offered to pay the balance sale consideration, the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent informed that certain development work was in progress and as soon as the same is completed, the agreements would be honoured; and that in January, 2018, the 2nd respondent informed the appellants that he was having certain disputes with respondents 3 and 4 and he had resigned from the 1st respondent Company, but assured that he would pursue the matter with respondents 3 and 4 and see that the suit agreements of sale were honoured.

9. The appellants contended that they are not concerned with the