HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND HON’BLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Nizampur Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.K.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

JUDGMENT: (Per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya The Appeal arises out of an order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the IX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar in I.A.No.162 of 2024 in O.S.No.414 of

2023.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the interlocutory application filed by the respondent Nos.1- 5/defendant Nos.2-6 (I.A.No.162 of 2024) for rejection of plaint in the Suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff (O.S.No.414 of 2023).

3. The Trial Court was of the view that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaint lacked pleadings as to the maintainability of the relief for directing the defendant Nos.2-6 (the respondent Nos.1-5 in the first Appeal) to execute a registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court was also of the view that there was no pleading for justifying specific performance of Agreement of Sale.

4. The relevant facts pleaded by the parties and the views of the Trial Court will be discussed in the later part of this judgment.

5. The appellant filed the Suit against the respondents/defendants for a direction on the defendant Nos.1- 7 to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff or his nominees in respect of the Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and in the alternative, for the Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the defendant No.1 entered into an Agreement of Sale with the appellant/plaintiff on 23.08.2018 for alienating the suit schedule properties on the premise that the properties were acquired by the defendant No.1’s parents through registered Sale Deeds and the defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the said properties. Counsel submits that since the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2018 did not stipulate a date for performance of the contract, the appellant issued a legal notice on 18.05.2023 to show that the appellant was ready and willing to perform the contract. Counsel submits that the appellant also called upon the defendant No.1 on 05.06.2023 to execute a registered sale deed, whereupon the appellant was informed of two Suits, namely, O.S.Nos.42 and 43 of 2014, in which the defendant No.1 and the other defendants are parties. The appellant was informed that the said Suits were filed seeking for permanent injunction and the defendant No.1 compromised with the other defendants in the said Suits.

7. Counsel submits that the appellant was therefore constrained to file the present Suit for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.08.2018 and for cancellation of the compromise decrees passed in O.S.Nos.42 and 43 of 2014.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-5/defendant Nos.2-6 in the Suit (O.S.No.414 of 2023) submits that the Suit filed by the appellant is bereft of a cause of action and is also barred by law since a suit for specific performance is not maintainable against third parties who are not parties to the Agreement of Sale which forms the subject matter of the Suit. Counsel submits that these third parties are not claiming any property from the defendant No.1 in the Agreement of Sale. Counsel relies on Order XXIII Rule 3A of the C.P.C. and on Section 19 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963, which bars setting aside of a compromise decree by way of a Suit.

9. Counsel submits that the present Appeal seeking injunction restraining alienation cannot be entertained in view of the fact of the appellant/plaintiff having failed to make out a prima facie case with regard to the other defendants having derived title to the property from the defendant No.1.

10. I have heard learn