An agreement of sale signed only by the vendor is valid for specific performance; injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to be established.

JUDGMENT :

P. SAM KOSHY, J.

1. The present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been preferred by the appellants who are defendant Nos.1 and 3 before the Trial Court. The challenge is to the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.59 of 2024 in O.S.No.1 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District.

2. Heard Ms. Shariq Ahmed, learned counsel, representing Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Saini Aravind, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiffs seeking for a temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating or creating of charge or creating third party interest in respect of the Suit schedule property is concerned.

4. The plaintiffs have initially filed the Suit seeking for specific performance for enforcement of the agreement of sale dated 29.04.2016 and further sought for a relief of direction to the defendants to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the Suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. Along with the said Suit, the plaintiffs have also filed I.A.No.59 of 2024 seeking for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 12 of CPC. It is this I.A. which now stands allowed in favour of the plaintiffs; whereby, the Trial Court has restrained the defendants from alienating, creating charge and also creating third party interest in respect of the Suit schedule property.

5. 1st and 3rd defendants have predominantly challenged the impugned order on three grounds; firstly, since the agreement of sale was one which was executed on 29.04.2016 and the Original Suit is one which has been filed on 23.01.2024 i.e., almost after a period of eight (08) years. The Suit is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the question of grant of injunction according to the appellants / 1st and 3rd defendants do not arise at all. Secondly, it was further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the agreement of sale, receipts, invoices of the sale consideration are all fabricated documents. It was contended that neither the agreement of sale nor the receipt of the sale consideration or the signatures and proof of the purchasers either available nor was there cogent proof of all these, yet the Trial Court proceeded to accept those documents as valid documents and granted interim injunction. Lastly, it was contended that the Trial Court has not fully appreciated the three basic ingredients required for the grant of temporary injunction.

6. As regards the aspect of limitation is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that in the light of the settled principle of law where it has been repeatedly held that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and as such the same could not have been decided at the threshold without recording all the evidence of the parties involved, which the Trial Court rightly held to be disputed question of fact and which could be decided on considering the evidence that is adduced in the course of trial.

7. As regards the second contention so far as the agreement of sale and the receipt of the sale consideration all being fabricated documents, more particularly, because those were unsigned by the