HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 challenging the order and decree dated 04.04.2023, passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.358 of 2021 in O.S.No.660 of 2021.

2. The appellants herein are defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 respectively, respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.6 and 7 are defendant Nos.1 and 4 in the suit.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.660 of 2021 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, against the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7, seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from inducting any third party into the suit schedule property viz., 14,726 square yards, bearing Municipal Nos.9-1- 44/1/2, 9-1-44/2/1/A and 9-1-44/1, falling in Survey Nos.140, 141 (Old No.144/1), situated at Langer House, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs also filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.358 of 2021 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7 from inducting any third party into the petition schedule property.

4. In the Interlocutory Application i.e., I.A.No.358 of 2021, the respondents/plaintiffs stated that the father of the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7 was owner of the suit schedule property i.e., 14,726 Square Yards and on demise of their father, the defendants succeeded to the suit schedule property. The appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7 jointly executed an unregistered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 02.11.2009 with regard to the development of entire suit schedule property i.e., 14,726 Square Yards in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.2.00 Crores in cash to the defendants as interest free refundable advance for the schedule property. Later, the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7 executed two Registered Development Agreements-cum-

General Power of Attorney bearing document Nos.614 of 2010 and 615 of 2010, dated 30.11.2009, in respect of the lands admeasuring 3829 square yards and 3441.11 square yards respectively.

5. It is contended that the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7 have not complied with the clauses of the agreement, and therefore, the respondent/plaintiffs could not undertake development of the land. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed O.S.No.1648 of 2011 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, for cancellation of the Registered Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document Nos.614 of 2010 and 615 of 2010 dated 30.11.2009. The respondents/plaintiffs did not choose to contest the said suit and they remained ex parte. However, the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 11.07.2012 on the ground that Clause No.31 of the said Development Agreement was not complied with by the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2012, the appellants/defendants and respondent Nos.6 and

7 filed an appeal vide C.C.C.A.No.159 of 2018 and the same is pending adjudication before this Court.

6. While the matter stood thus, on 20.10.2021 and 22.10.2021, the defendant Nos.3 and 4 came to the schedule property along with third parties with an intention to alienate the schedule property to third parties without cancelling the registered deeds.

7. The appellants/defendant Nos.2,3,5 and 6 filed counter denying the allegations made in the Interlocutory Application. However, they admitted that they entered into two Registered Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing document Nos.614 of 2010 and 615 of 2010 dated 30.11.2009 in respect of 3829 square yards and 3441.11 square yards respectively. They also denied that they j