The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K.V. BHANU PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI A. VENKATESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PRAMOO MALIGI The Court delivered the following Judgment : ': ",r*.4--7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KT-I\'AR AND THE HON'BLE SIIIT. JUSTICE P. SREE SIII)HA CIVIL }IISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No.51 of .?,o2s JUDGMENT Q)er Hon'ble Sn Justice T. Virtod Kumat) This Civil Miscellartcous Appcal is dilcctcc rrgainst the ordcr datcd 30.1O.2024 in I.A.No.1636 of 2024 in Cr.l:t. No. 169 of 2024 on the file of VI Additior-ral District and Ses;sions Judge, Rar-rga Rerldy at Kukatpally.

2. Thc r\ppcllant here itr is tltc rcspondent in tltc underlying i n terlocut rrr-1' a pplicatio i-r and clc lellciatlt in the sui l-

3. Thc )?cspondcnt herein is Lhc petitioncr in -;1: e I.A., and plaintiff in thc subject suit, uide O.S. No.169 of .ll'24 filed for perpelual injunction.

4. 'lhe partir:s are referrcd l-o as per their positiorl .Lr the suit,

5. 'lhc plaintilf had filcd thc subjcct suit for grar- t rf perpetual injunctior restraining the de[er-rdant and their henchmen, agents, rr:presentative or any person claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession arr: enjoyment over the suit schcdule property. ;l 2

6. The plaintiff, along with suit, had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order XXXI Rule 1 and 2 read tvith Section 151 of CPC to grant ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent or his family members, henchmen from interfering rvith the possession of the petitioner/ plaintiff over the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit.

7. The appellalt/defendant herein had filed counter to the aforesaid application claiming that a GpA dated O6.04.1999 has been fabricated and on the basis of the aforesaid fabricated GPA, sale deed has been executed on 27.12.2006; and that the appellant/defendant had hled suit, uide O.S. No. 1392 of 2076 for declaration, cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GpA in favour of V. Nagender Rao and recovery of possession and, as such, the Court below erred in granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

8. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, it is further contended that the plaintiff's vendor being only an agreement holder cannot deal with the property; that the plaintiff cannot claim any better title to the subject property than his vendor; ald that the Court belorr", erred in allowing the under\ring -+,!!aq. rr'+rt / .')k ,, t :i.4" -. ^..a .," ;', 3 interlocutory application by granting injuirction ;rending the

9. Per contra, on behalf of the respondent/ I)L,,intiff it is contcnded that the defer-rdant having filed the suit, uide O.S. No.1392 of 2016 for recovery of possession, declaralion of titie, cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA and -ecovery of possession, cannot claim to be in possession r.,f the suit schedule croperty; and that the Court below ha.,'ing erred in granting injunction in favour of the respon C,, nt/ plaintiff pending c,:nsi<leration of suit filed by him uide O S. No.169 of

10. It is also contended on behalf of the responCt nt/plaintiff that the defendant having failed to obtain any inju nr:tion in the suit lrled by him, uide O.S. No.1392 of 2016 carn()t seek the relief for setting aside the order granting injunction :n favour of the plaintiff. 1 1. Hearcl Sri I(.V. Bhalu Prasad, Iearned Se ri,rr Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sai Sri Harsha, learne<l rlounsel for the appellant/defendant and Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior 4 Counsel appearing for Sri Pramod Mulgi, learned Counsel for respondent/plaintiff and perused the record.

12. The subject suit is hled by the respondent/ plaintiff against the appellalt/ defendant for grant of perpetual injunction claiming that he having purchased the suit schedule property from one V. Nagender Rao under a registered sale deed dated 27 .12.2006 and being in possession of the suit schedule property.

13. V.rhile it is the case of the appcllant that V. Nagender Rao claiming himself to be an agreemcnt holder had sold the subjccr property to the plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated 06.O4 .1999 by forging his signature and fabricating an agreement of sale-cum-GPA [or rvhich he had filed suit, uide O.S. No. 1392 of 2016 and the said suit is pending consideration, the trial Court ought not to have granted injunction.

14. Though on behalf of the appellant it is contended that thc Court below erred in granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the rcspondent, a reading of the plaint averments of the suit fied uide O.S. No. 1392 of 2O 16 lr ould clearly show that the ;l 1 i I I I I I 5 appellant Laving categoricalll, admitted to be out of ttosscssion of the suit schedule propel'ty which it is clairned as having been sold under the forged and fabricated agreement o{ s;a1e by the plaintitf's vendor. It is also furtl-rer irnportant to notr: :hat in the aforcsaid suit filed by the appcliant, no orcier of iqu:rction has beer-r grantt:d.

15. Furtlu:r, the factum of thc forgcry ancl fabricrrtion alleged by thc app,:llant is to be proved in tlrc aforcseid suit. Till such timc, the z llegcd lorgery and fabrication of agreenre rt of sale- cum-GPA is proved, the appellant cannot clai.r thaL the respondent herein in the suit frlcd uide O.S. No.16() of 2024 as plaintiff is not entitled for being granted injunctiorr restraining the appellant/ d efendant from interfering with his pc s,.ession.

16. Further, ar perusal of the allcged agieement r{ sale-cum- GPA, cance:llation of which has been sought for in .h r suit filed uide O.S. No. I ii92 of 2016, r'ccords that possessior ,rf the said property hilving been delivered in favour of V.Nagen,ler Rao on receiving the agreed consideration thereunder, who itr turn had sold the subjecl- property in favour o[ the responden :Lerein.

17. It is also to be noted tirat the agreement of szLL:-cum-GPA under whir:h the respondent/ plaintifl's vendor is c laiming title {l 6 to the suit schedule property is a registered document on the basis of which a registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the respcrcJent herein. Since, the agreement of sale_ cum-GPA in favour of the plaintiff,s vendor is a registered document, the effect of such registration in the year 1999 and execution of sale deed in favour of respondent herein in the year 2006 is to be construed as notice to pubtic and the appellant cannot claim ofnot being aware or ignorant ofthe same. 18. Since, in a pctition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the Court below is only required to consider (1) pima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss and inasmuch as the respondent/plaintiff having proved bis prima facie case on the basis of a rcgistered document and being in possession of the suit schedule property, the Court below had allowed the underlying interlocutory application. The said order of the Court belo,a, in restraining the appellant/del-endant, his tamily members, henchmen, agents from interfering with the respondent/plainti if over the suit schedule property of O.S. No.169 of 2024, till the disposal of the suit, thus, cannot be said as either illegal or perverse for being interfered with by this Court in the present appea-l. 19. Accordingly, the CMA fails and is dismissed. No costs. 7 As a. sequel, miscellaneous petitions pendinl if any shall stand clos,:d. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ., SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Vl Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga F{erddy at Kukatpally 2. One CC to SRl. KOTHAPALLI SAI SRI HARSHA, Adv,:r<;ate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PRAMOD MAL|Gl, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/PSL (r I I I ! I i I ; { 1 I HIGH COURT DATED:2210412025 JUDGMETN CMA.No.S1 ol 2025 :\. '-;. ' FP t1n ,1 :,', i::ii: 2,i l. ,jl \:. ^ 'i. DISMISSING THE CIUA WITHOUT COSTS n r l- q\ l/) f) "L o