The party filing for grant of temporary injunction, must make out a Prima Facie case

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 26th December 2019 

 Saketa Vaksana LLP & Anr………(Appellants)
 vs 
Kaukutla Sarala & Ors……(Respondents)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9483 OF 2019 

Facts of Case:

• the Appellant – Developer and the Respondent – Landowners entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017, whereby the Respondents agreed to sell agricultural land comprising of 54 acres 13 guntas situated in Turkapalli Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal­ Malkajgiri District to the Appellant – Developer. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 46,00,000/­ per acre.
• The land was divided into 5 schedules, and each schedule of land was to be sold to the Appellant – Developer upon payment of the proportionate sale consideration. Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 17.11.2017 stated that physical possession of the entire land was handed over to the Appellant – Developer on the day of execution of the Agreement.
• The Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 was an unregistered document executed on a Stamp Paper of Rs. 100. The Stamp Duty on this Agreement was paid by the Appellant – Developer on 27.08.2018
• Out of the total extent of land, the Respondents executed four registered Agreements of Sale cum General Power of Attorney with respect to 36 acres 211⁄2 guntas of land in favour of the Appellant – Developer. The first two Agreements of Sale were executed on 03.01.2018; the third on 24.03.2018; and the fourth on 31.03.2018.
• The Appellant – Developer submitted that it has paid Rs. 17,25,00,000/­ for the aforesaid four Agreements of Sale. The Respondents have seriously disputed this submission, and stated that an amount of only Rs. 14,25,00,000/­ was paid by the Appellant – Developer. This gave rise to disputes between the parties for payment of the balance consideration for land admeasuring 17 acres 31 1/2 guntas (“suit property”).

• The Appellant – Developer filed a Suit for Specific Performance seeking Specific Performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District (“Trial Court”).
• The Appellant/Plaintiff prayed that the Respondents be directed to execute the Sale Deed for the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 311⁄2 guntas; and provide ingress and egress to the land admeasuring 36 acres 211⁄2 guntas for which the registered Agreements of Sale cum GPA had been executed.
• The Appellant – Developer filed two I.A.s in the Suit praying for Temporary Injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC before the Trial Court.  First I.A was filed for a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Appellant –Developer over the entire land admeasuring 54 acres 13 guntas.
• Second I.A was filed for a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating any third-party interest in the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31 1⁄2 guntas. 
• The Trial Court passed an Interim Order dated 01.05.2019 in first I.A. with respect to the prayer for injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Appellant – Developer over the suit property, and held that the issue with respect to possession of the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31 1⁄2 could only be decided in trial.
• In view of the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court held that the Appellant – Developer made out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in their favour. The Trial Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Appellant – Developer over the suit property excluding the extent of 12,000 sq. feet. till the disposal of the suit, subject to the Appellant – Developer depositing the balance sale consideration @Rs. 46,00,000/­ per acre.
• Later on the, the appellant- Developers field two Miscellaneous Appeals before a Single Judge of the High Court to challenge the Interim Orders passed by the Trial Court. The Respondents filed a cross Miscellaneous Appeal before the division bench of the High Court praying for setting aside the Temporary Injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Appellant- Developer over the suit property.

• It is relevant to note that the Order dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Trial Court in second I.A has not been challenged by the Respondent – Landowners.
• A Single Judge of the High Court vide Interim Order, directed that the Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Appellant – Developer would extend to the entire suit property, including the parcel of 12,000 sq. feet of land and that the injunction restraining the Respondents from creating third party rights in the suit property would operate, without the condition of depositing the balance sale consideration.
• In C.M.A. filed by the respondents, the division bench of the High Court vide order dated 14.08.2019, the impugned Interim Orders, has set aside the Order of Temporary Injunction dated 01.05.2019 passed by the Trial Court in the first I.A.
• As the appellants were dissatisfied by the interim orders passed by the High Court, they challenged it in the Supreme Court in the way of Civil Appeal.

Issues:

• Whether possession of the suit property was at all handed over to the Appellant – Developer or not?
• whether part consideration for the suit property was paid by the Appellant – Developer to the Respondent – Landowners or not?

Held:

• The court held that the orders dated 14.08.2019 passes by the division bench of the High Court do not warrant any interference. The High Court has already granted a Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in the suit property till the disposal of the Suit. The interest of the Appellant – Developer has been sufficiently protected with respect to ownership of the suit property.
• It was also held that the Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed by the division bench of High Court, whereby the Temporary Injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Appellant – Developer over the suit property has been vacated.
• The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter, since the observations have been made at an interim stage of the proceedings.
• Lastly, the court has directed that the hearing of O.S. No. 213/2018 pending before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District be expedited, and disposed of preferably within a period of one year from today.

The Civil Appeals are therefore, dismissed. Pending Applications if any, are accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.