The court emphasized the necessity of preserving status quo in property possession disputes, affirming that registered sale deeds have presumptive validity unless legally challenged.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is directed against the order dated

10.09.2024 passed in OS No.1033/2021 by the Prl.Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1(a) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents-plaintiffs from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property was dismissed.

2. The appellant being defendant before the trial Court is aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting has application despite his claim of lawful possession under a registered sale deed and alleged payments made towards the full sale consideration and other incidental expenses.

3. It is the case of the appellant that, the property in question was purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 2.11.2021. According to him, the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed was Rs.49,00,000/- which he has fully paid, and in addition, he has expended a substantial sum towards ancillary arrangements and settlements relating to earlier transactions and disputes with the family members of the vendors. The appellant specifically contends that, he is in settled, lawful and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and any interference at this interlocutory stage by the respondents would cause irreparable harm. The appellant further states that, he had paid Rs.23,00,000/- directly to the plaintiffs and additionally disbursed Rs.39,00,000/- to the daughter of plaintiff no.3. by name Swathi to obtain a confirmation deed which was essential in the context of resolving potential family disputes that might have affected his title or possession.

4. On the other hand, the respondents filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed, asserting that the actual sale consideration agreed was Rs.88,00,000/- and that only Rs.14,50,000/- had been paid. They contended that, several cheques mentioned in the sale deed were either not issued or dishonoured. Based on this allegation, they not only challenged the validity of the sale deed, but also, sought temporary injunction against the appellant from alienating the property. However, the learned trial Court in its impugned order, found that, neither side approached the Court with clean hands due to the apparent discrepancy between the stated and the alleged consideration amounts. Consequently, it rejected both the applications filed by the plaintiffs and the application filed by the defendant.

5. Now the defendant is before this Court challenging the impugned order whereas, appellant has not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order.

6. Upon a careful perusal of the material on record including the contents of the sale deed, affidavit filed before the trial Court and rival submissions, it is evident that, the appellant is in possession of the suit schedule property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 02.11.2021. Even the plaintiffs have prayed for the relief of possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs on receipt of part sale consideration paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed dated 02.11.2021 at prayer B. in the prayer column in the plaint in OS No.1033/2021.

7. The record show that, the sale deed is duly executed and registered instrument and unless it is set aside through appropriate judicial proceedings, it continues to have a presumptive legal sanctity under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The allegation of respondents that, only Rs.14,50,000/- was received and the rest of the cheques were dishonored may well be a matter for a detailed trial and adjudication.