Puli Jaya Prakash Reddy vs Saginala Venkataramanamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 1092 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

       THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

                                AND

      THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

          CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.235 OF 2021

Puli Jaya Prakash Reddy,
S/o.Puli Thimma Reddy, Aged about 43 years,
Occ: Business, R/o.Gorvimanipalli Village,
Kolimigundla Mandal,
Kurnool District.                  ...            Appellant

                                   Versus

Saginala Venkataramanamma @
Shyamalamma, W/o.Late Swamy Das,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o.H.No.28-30-A, Harijanawada,
Noonepalli, Nandyal Town,
Kurnool District.               ...               Respondent

Counsel for the appellant : Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, Advocate

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. V. Nitesh, Advocate

ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 02.03.2022

(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)

Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant/applicant and Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. The present Appeal is directed against the order and

decree dated 06.08.2021 passed in I.A. No.594 of 2021 in O.S.

No.15 of 2021 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool

at Nandyal, by which the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'Code') for grant of

temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from

alienating the petition schedule property, pending disposal of the

suit, has been dismissed.

3. Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 has been filed by

the appellant seeking temporary injunction restraining the

respondent from alienating the petition schedule property, pending

disposal of the present Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is the

plaintiff in the suit and the same has been filed for specific

performance based on the agreement for sale between the

appellant and the respondent dated 18.07.2012 for sale of the

petition schedule property. It was submitted that in terms of the

said agreement, Rs.60,00,000/- was paid in advance with a

stipulation that whenever balance amount would be paid the

respondent shall execute a registered sale deed. It was submitted

that regularly and repeatedly the appellant has been ready and

willing to pay the balance consideration amount but the

respondent refused to honour the agreement for sale and register

the sale deed in his favour.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed counter

affidavit, submitted that the very basis of the suit i.e., the

agreement for sale is a forged document as it does not bear the

signature of the respondent. Further, it was contended that much

prior to filing of the suit, the petition schedule property has already

been sold to third persons, who have not been made party to the

suit. It was also categorically submitted that prior to 06.09.2020

there had been no steps taken by the appellant for enforcing the

agreement and after more than 8 years, for the first time, on

06.09.2020, legal notice has been sent which clearly indicates the

falsity of the claim as payment of Rs.60,00,000/- in cash at one go

itself raises serious doubts and, most importantly, it cannot be

expected that a person who has paid Rs.60,00,000/- would wait

for 8 years before taking legal steps towards enforcing the

agreement for sale or recovery of the amount.

6. Having considered the rival contentions and having gone

through the order under appeal, the Court does not find any merit

in the present Appeal. The reasons given by the Court below to

reject the petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code, thus, do

not require any interference. Further, the Interlocutory Application

No.1 of 2021 also seeking a relief which is the relief which would

result if the main appeal itself is allowed, cannot be granted at an

interim stage as it would amount to allowing the main appeal itself.

7. For reasons aforesaid, both the main appeal as well as I.A.

No.1 of 2021, being devoid of merit, stand dismissed. No order as

to costs.

_______________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)

________________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)

Dsh