RAYANI ARUN KUMAR Vs. CHINTHAKUNTA PADMAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the order, dtd. 7/5/2021, passed in I.A. No.68 of 2021 in O.S. No.6 of 2021 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur (for short, 'the learned Judge') whereby the prayer of the appellant/petitioner to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties had been turned down.

(2.) The appellant herein had filed O.S. No.6 of 2021 for specific performance of an agreement for sale, which is said to be executed on 9/12/2013, for sale of the suit property i.e., an extent of Ac.8.00 cents out of Ac. 13.44 cents situated in Survey No.5 of Nanganurupalli Village, Proddatur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, at a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000.00 per acre. As per the agreement, the balance sale consideration was to be paid within six (6) months and sale deed was to be executed. It is claimed the appellant made two part payments to a tune of Rs.20,00,000.00 each on 10/11/2016 and 10/10/2019 to the 1st respondent, respectively. It is further alleged though the appellant was ready and willing to pay the remainder of the sale consideration, the 1st respondent was unwilling to perform her part of the contract and execute the sale deed. Upon enquiry, the appellant came to know that the 1st respondent in collusion with the 2nd respondent had executed registered sale deed, dtd. 13/11/2014, conveying the suit property in favour of the 2nd respondent. Under such circumstances, the appellant issued a legal notice, dtd. 26/12/2020, upon the 1 and 2 respondents seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale, whereupon the 2nd respondent replied to the said notice on 4/1/2021 denying the allegations. Hence, the suit for specific performance was filed.

(3.) As the respondents were taking steps to alienate the schedule property to third parties, the appellant prayed for an injunction against alienation of the suit property in question.