THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in I.A. No. 1 of 2024 IN/AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.256 of 2024 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.812 of 2023 in O.S. No.204 of 2023 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge- Cum-I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum- II Addl. Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Medchal.

2. The appellant herein is the respondent in the underlying application and defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for Specific Performance and Perpetual Injunction under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘the CPC’).

3. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the subject suit seeking Specific Performance of agreement of sale dated 20.12.2022 entered into by him with the appellant herein, claiming that he had failed to execute sale deed in respect of land admeasuring Ac 6-15 gts situated at Jeedimetla village, even after receiving the total sale consideration, though the respondent No.1/ plaintiff was put in possession of the vacant land under the Agreement of Sale.

4. Appellant contends that, as no sale deed was executed, the respondent No.1/plaintiff cannot claim of being put in vacant possession of the suit schedule property and the trial Court without considering the above aspect passed ex-parte interim order. Thus, the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 in I.A. No.812 of 2023 granted by the trial Court directing both parties to maintain status quo is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per Contra, it is the case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff that, the appellant has become the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.15.00 gts in Survey No.33/8, 33/9 and 33/10 at Jeedimetla village by virtue of registered partition deed dated 21.11.1977; and that out of the said extent, the appellant offered to sell land admeasuring Ac.6.15 gts., in his favour for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only).

6. The respondent No.1/plaintiff further contends that, he and appellant had entered into agreement of sale dated 20.10.2022;

and that he has paid part sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- to the appellant, and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- in three months or at the time of registration. It is also contended that though the respondent No.1/plaintiff was put in possession, the registered sale deed was not executed as the revenue authorities raised a dispute over the subject land, the same was not incorporated in Dharani portal due to which patta certificate was not issued.

7. Respondent No.1/plaintiff also contends that, as a security towards the balance sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/- payable, he had issued two blank cheques for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- and another for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and assured that after arranging the said amount, he will take back the cheques. It is the further contention of the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff, that subsequently, he had paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on 03.12.2022 through RTGS and further paid Rs.25,00,000/- on 22.12.2022 by way of cash to the appellant. On making the aforesaid payment, the appellant returned the blank cheques to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and thus, complied with his part of obligation as per the agreement of sale;

and that the Appellant executed Receipt-cum-undertaking Letter dt. 22.12.2022, whereby the Appellant not only acknowledged the receipt of the total consideration reserved under the Agreement of Sale, but also authorized the Respondent No.1/Plaintiff to clear the pending revenue disputes.

8. Respondent No.1/plaintiff further contends that, the appellant even after receiving the total payment reserved under Agreement of Sale dated 20.10.2022, failed to perform his part obligations by executing registered sale deed, he had filed