K RAJARANI Vs. CHINTALA VENKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise from a common order in two interlocutory applications. I.A.No. 866/1988 was an application filed by the defendants for a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiffs from evicting them from the suit malgie in pursuance of the eviction orders obtained by the plaintiffs, or otherwise. I.A.No. 911/1988 was a petition filed by the plaintiffs to exclude the counter-claim put forward by the defendants in their written statement, claiming specific performance of the agreement of sale. The learned III Addl. Judge dismissed I. A. 866/1988 and allowed I. A. 911/1988. These two appeals are accordingly filed by the defendants.

(2.) Plaintiffs are the landlords of the suit malgie, and the defendants tenants therein. Plaintiffs filed an eviction petition, R.C.No. 152/1981, and obtained an order of eviction. An appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. The tenants carried the matter to this Court in C. R P. No. 3498/1984. In this Civil Revision Petition the tenants (defendants) filed a petition, CM.P. No. 18062/87, to take into consideration the settlement arrived at between the parties, whereunder the plaintiffs are said to have agreed to sell the suit malgie to the defendants evidenced by an agreement of sale dated 20-7-1987. The High Court, however, refused to place any reliance on the said agreement of sale or settlement, and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition on merits. The defendants-tenants thereupon filed an application for grant of special leave before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition observing that it is open to the tenants-defendants to establish their rights on the basis of the alleged agreement of sale, in a proper proceeding. The Supreme Court also granted three months' time to the defendants for vacating the premises. The period of three months was to expire on 10-8-1988.

(3.) Meanwhile, on 23-1-1988, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for rescission of the alleged contract of sale set up by the defendants. They denied its execution. The defendants appeared, and in their written statement they not only denied the plaintiffs' claim, but also put forward a counter-claim for specific performance of the said agreement of sale dated 20-7-1987. They also asked for a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from evicting them from the suit malgie in execution of the eviction orders, or otherwise. The defendants filed I. A. 866/1988 for temporary injunction pending the suit, while the plaintiffs filed 1. A. 911/88 to exclude the said counter-claim, of the defendants. As stated above, the trial Court allowed the p'aiatiffs' application, and dismissed the application filed by the defendants.