JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

Heard Sri T.Surya Satish, learned counsel assisted by Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.2 and Sri Sunil B.Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

2. Both the Appeals are filed being aggrieved by the orders dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Trial Court’) allowing I.A.Nos.828 and 829 of 2025 in O.S.No.241 of 2025 by restraining the appellant/defendant No.2 from alienating the suit schedule property and from creating third-party interests and from in any way changing the nature of the suit property either by making any construction or otherwise.

3. The appellant herein is the defendant No.2 in the suit O.S.No.241 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (AGPA) dated 06.12.2001 executed by the appellant in favour of respondent No.1. The appellant and respondent No.2 are husband and wife.

4. The brief facts leading to filing of O.S.No.241 of 2025 are that, the appellant being a very close family friend for more than 45 years, used to stay at the house of the respondent No.1 herein whenever he visited Hyderabad. Basing on mutual trust, the appellant invested in properties in Hyderabad through the respondent No.1’s aid and advice. Since 2000, with respondent No.1’s guidance, the appellant purchased multiple properties. The respondent No.1 along with his son managed the properties on their behalf, including rents, tenants and outgoings, as the appellant appointed the respondent No.1 as AGPA under registered AGPA dated 06.12.2001 in respect of Plot No.54, Priya Cooperative Housing Society, Gudimalkapur. When the appellant was in need of money for his daughter’s marriage, the appellant orally agreed on 18.06.2024 to sell the Mahesh Nagar Plots (450 sq. yards) for a sale consideration of Rs.4,00,00,000/- to be paid by 31.10.2024. Pursuant to the oral agreement dt.18.06.2024, the appellant along with his wife/respondent No.2 and mediators met the respondent No.1 on 29.06.2024, where the appellant along with mediators sought advance payments, and the respondent paid in total an amount of Rs.2,53,00,000/-. It was agreed that the balance of Rs.1,47,00,000/- was payable at the time of registration. The appellant executed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 29.06.2024 recording the oral transaction agreeing to execute a registered sale deed on 03.10.2024 after receiving the balance amount. However, the appellant could not appear before the SRO on that date as they had to go to London to perform the marriage of the appellant’s daughter on 18.11.2024.

5. It was further the case that after the marriage, certain disputes arose between the appellant and respondent No.1, and that the respondent No.1 later came to know on enquiry that respondent No.2 executed a gift deed on 03.10.2024 in favour of the appellant, with an intention to wriggle out of the obligation to execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.1. Subsequently, it was stated that the appellant and respondent No.2 commenced construction by digging pits/pillars, and tried to alienate the property by showing it to buyers. Therefore, O.S.No.241 of 2025 was initiated seeking a direction against the appellant and respondent No.2 to execute and register sale deed in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of the property bearing No.13-6-460/11, admeasuring 500 sq. yards situated at Gudimalkapur.

6. Pending the suit, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed I.A.No.828/2025 seeking interim injunction restraining the appellant and respondent No.2 from alienating the suit schedule property and I.A.No.829/2025 seeking an interim injunction against the appellant and respondent No.2 from changing the nature of the suit property ei