GENEMEDIX BIOLOGICAL PVT Vs. K NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein is defendant No.4 who filed this appeal challenging the orders passed on 3-1-2007 in LA. No.3978 of 2006 in O.S. No.459 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad allowing the application purported to be filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein who are plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant and also the 3rd respondent herein who are defendants 1 and 4 therein and their men from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.

(2.) The facts in brief are that in the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein who sought for declaration that the registered gift settlement deed dated 13-5-2004 in favour of the 1st respondent herein executed by them is invalid and inoperative and also for setting aside the sale deed dated 29-6-2006 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the appellant herein and cancel the same as fraudulent and invalid and consequently, for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant and the appellant from interfering with the possession and occupation of the suit schedule property which consists of a house of an extent of 400 sq. yards situated in S.No.1384 L.R. Gudem, Hyderabad.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that defendant No.1 is their son. The plaintiffs are owners of the suit properties having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 28-2-1978 and later constructed some structures, which are let out. Defendants 2 and 3 are the daughters of the plaintiffs who are already married in 1974 and 1997. After retirement of the 2nd plaintiff, to avoid disputes in future, a Memo of Understanding was entered into between the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 on 19th April, 2004 agreeing to develop the property and allot the same to the plaintiffs and also defendant No.1 and her daughters. In pursuance thereof, for the purpose of commencing construction in the suit schedule property, a registered gift deed dated 13-5-2004 was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1. However, in spite of such undertaking given by defendant No.1 for the purpose of commencing the construction under the said agreement, the 1st defendant has alienated the said property in favour of defendant No.4 by way of a registered sale deed dated 29-6-2006. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, such an action on the part of Defendant No.1 in violation of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding, is totally fraudulent and illegal. Pending the suit, the present application has been filed before the Court below seeking to continue the plaintiffs to remain in possession. There has been no delivery of possession as such in favour of the appellant-defendant No.4 pursuant to the said sale deed dated 29-6-2006 and therefore, the plaintiffs sought for an interim injunction.