P. ASHALATHA Vs. KANAPURAM KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of C.P.C., against the order, dated 24.08.2020 passed in I.A.No.1709 of 2018 in O.S.No.223 of 2018 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating, mortgaging or creating any charge etc., over the suit scheduled property.

(2.) Necessary facts for disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:

(3.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract in respect of scheduled land admeasuring Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.Nos.475, 476, 477, 478, 489, 490, 497, 495 and 487 situated at Velemela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, directing the respondents/defendants to execute a Registered Development Agreement-cum-G.P.A., on sufficient stamp paper conveying absolutely the scheduled property in terms of the agreement, dated 27.06.2018 and receipt of security deposit amount of Rs.17,00,000/- by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also provide necessary authorisations as agreed under receipt, dated 27.06.2018 in favour of the plaintiff and in case of failure the Court to execute the Development Agreement in respect of the scheduled property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1709 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., seeking temporary injunction in her favour, restraining the respondents/ defendants from alienating, mortgaging or creating any charge etc., over the suit scheduled property till the disposal of the main suit. It is stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff is engaged in Real Estate business and with an intention to develop the scheduled property on sharing basis, she contacted the 1st respondent/1st defendant, who is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheduled property. Accordingly, the 1st respondent/1st defendant offered the scheduled property for development on sharing basis. Apart from the land of the 1st respondent/1st defendant, the plaintiff also took the adjacent lands and the lands appurtenant to the suit scheduled property from the respective owners for development on sharing basis. It was decided and agreed between the plaintiff and 1st respondent/1st defendant that the plaintiff shall develop the suit scheduled property by laying roads, construct villas and provide other amenities by investing her funds. The 1st respondent/1st defendant stating that he would enter into Development Agreement and execute General Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff, received an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- as advance from her i.e., Rs.16,10,000/- by way of cash and Rs.90,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.158007 dated 27.06.2018 drawn on Axis Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad, and the 1st respondent/1st defendant had acknowledged the receipt of the same. The 1st respondent/1st defendant having received the advance amount, had put the plaintiff in possession of the suit scheduled property and allowed her to take steps to develop the lands, like submitting applications to change the nature of land from agriculture to non-agriculture to the authorities concerned for sanction of the layout. As the plaintiff required General Power of Attorney of the 1st respondent/1st defendant in her favour for the purpose of developing the land, she requested the 1st respondent/1st defendant to give the same and even though the 1st respondent/1st defendant initially agreed to execute the General Power of Attorney in respect of the scheduled property in her favour by receiving the balance agreed amount, subsequently, he started avoiding to execute the same in her favour, even though she is ready and willing to pay the balance amount. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant offered to pay more amount to the 1st respondent/1st defendant and as such the 1st respondent/1st defendant was showing interest to give the land for development in favour of the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant. Therefore, she was constrained to give legal notice to both the defendants, in particular to the 1st defendant calling upon him to receive the balance amount and perform his part of obligation by executing the registered Development Agreement and to give General Power of Attorney, but the respondents/defendants neither replied to the said notice nor the 1st respondent/1st defendant has come forward to receive the balance amount and register the Development Agreement and give General Power of Attorney and as such the plaintiff filed the suit. As the 1st respondent/1st defendant is taking steps to alienate the suit scheduled property in favour of the third parties, she filed the above I.A. The appellant/plaintiff has got prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour, hence prayed to grant temporary injunction.