THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.51 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2024 in I.A.No.1636 of 2024 in O.S. No.169 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy at Kukatpally.

2. The Appellant herein is the respondent in the underlying interlocutory application and defendant in the suit.

3. The Respondent herein is the petitioner in the I.A., and plaintiff in the subject suit, vide O.S. No.169 of 2024 filed for perpetual injunction.

4. The parties are referred to as per their position in the suit.

5. The plaintiff had filed the subject suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and their henchmen, agents, representative or any person claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

6. The plaintiff, along with suit, had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XXXI Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent or his family members, henchmen from interfering with the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

7. The appellant/defendant herein had filed counter to the aforesaid application claiming that a GPA dated 06.04.1999 has been fabricated and on the basis of the aforesaid fabricated GPA, sale deed has been executed on 27.12.2006; and that the appellant/defendant had filed suit, vide O.S. No.1392 of 2016 for declaration, cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of V. Nagender Rao and recovery of possession and, as such, the Court below erred in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

8. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, it is further contended that the plaintiff’s vendor being only an agreement holder cannot deal with the property; that the plaintiff cannot claim any better title to the subject property than his vendor; and that the Court below erred in allowing the underlying interlocutory application by granting injunction pending the suit.

9. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff it is contended that the defendant having filed the suit, vide O.S. No.1392 of 2016 for recovery of possession, declaration of title, cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA and recovery of possession, cannot claim to be in possession of the suit schedule property; and that the Court below having erred in granting injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff pending consideration of suit filed by him vide O.S. No.169 of

2024.

10. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendant having failed to obtain any injunction in the suit filed by him, vide O.S. No.1392 of 2016 cannot seek the relief for setting aside the order granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

11. Heard Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sai Sri Harsha, learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Pramod Mulgi, learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

12. The subject suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant for grant of perpetual injunction claiming that he having purchased the suit schedule property from one V. Nagender Rao under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2006 and being in possession of the suit schedule property.

13. While it is the case of the appellant that V. Nagender Rao claiming himself to be an agreement holder had sold the subject property to the plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated 06.04.1999 by forging his signature and fabricating an agreement of sale-cum-GPA for which he had filed suit, vide O.S. No.1392 of 2016 and the said suit is pending consideration, the trial Court ought not to have granted injunct