Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Jayani Estates Pvt Ltd vs M/S.Vallabha Feeds Pvt Ltd on 15 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
****
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 252 OF 2023
Between:
M/s. Jayani Estates Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised
Representative,Sri M.B.G. VeerabhadraRao S/o M.B.S.S. Sastry,
aged 58 years, R/o MAPL 918, Rain Tree Park, Opp. Nagarjuna
University,Nambur, Guntur District & 2 others.
...APPELLANTS
AND
M/s Vallabha Feeds Private Limited,having its Regd. Office at 12-13-
27/A,Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopeta, Pin . 522 601, Guntur District,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Bolla SrinivasaRao, R/o Prakash Nagar,
60 ft. Road, Narsaraopeta, Guntur District & another.
...RESPONDENTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.02.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
&
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes / No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters /Journals? Yes / No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes / No
___________________
A.V. SESHA SAI, J
________________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
&
* THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
+ CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 252 OF 2023
% 15.02.2024
Between:
M/s. Jayani Estates Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised
Representative,Sri M.B.G. VeerabhadraRao S/o M.B.S.S. Sastry,
aged 58 years, R/o MAPL 918, Rain Tree Park, Opp. Nagarjuna
University,Nambur, Guntur District & 2 others.
...APPELLANTS
AND
M/s Vallabha Feeds Private Limited,having its Regd. Office at 12-13-
27/A,Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopeta, Pin . 522 601, Guntur District,
Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Bolla SrinivasaRao, R/o Prakash Nagar,
60 ft. Road, Narsaraopeta, Guntur District & another.
...RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for Appellants : Ms.C.Sindhu Kumari.
^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2022 SCC Online AP 135
2. (2020) 11 SCC 773
3. (2012) 1 SCC 735
4. (2004) 1 SCC 195
5. AIR 2023 SC 3637
6. AIR 1975 SC 2202.
7. AIR 1968 Kerala 213
8. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727
APHC010154862023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [
3455
]
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 252 OF 2023
Between:
M/s Jayani Estates Private Limited and others. ...APPELLANTS
AND
M/s Vallabha Feeds Private Limited and others. ...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants: Sri C SINDHU KUMARI
Counsel for the Respondents
Respondents: VAJJHALA SATYANARAYANA PRASAD
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai)
Plaintiffs in O.S.No.102 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the
learned XII Additional District Judge, Guntur District are the
appellants in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, preferred under
Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. This appeal calls in question the order, dated 21.12.2022,
passed by the said Court in I.A.No.613 of 2022. Appellants herein
instituted the said suit against the respondents for the following
reliefs:
a) To pass Decree directing the Defendants for Specific
Performance of Agreement/understanding arrived on
16/08/2018, by directing them to retransfer the Plaint
schedule land, Ac.29.49 cents, situate in Kaza village,
Mangalagiri Mandal, PedaKakani Sub Registry, Guntur
District, in favour of the Plaintiffs.
b) In case the Defendants failed to execute the document and
to register the document/s, retransferring the Plaint
schedule land, as prayed for, in favour of the Plaintiffs, the
Hon'ble court may appoint an Officer of the court to execute
such document/s, to retransfer the Plaint schedule land in
favour of the Plaintiffs;
c) To pass Decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the
Defendants for a sum of Rs.10 crores as liquidated
damages;
d) Grant a Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendants to
return to the Plaintiffs the blank Cheques and blank
Promissory Notes referred to in para 7 of the Plaint
e) To grant costs of the suit; and
f) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
necessary and proper and pass such other order or orders
as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case".
3. In the said suit, plaintiffs-appellants herein filed the present
I.A.No.613 of 2022 under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
r/w Section 151 CPC, seeking ad-interim/temporary injunction to
restrain the defendants-respondents herein from alienating the plaint
schedule properties in favour of others pending disposal of the suit.
Resisting the said application, defendants-respondents filed counter.
4. During the course of enquiry, plaintiffs-appellants herein, in
order to substantiate their case, filed Exs.A1 to A28 and the
defendants did not file any documents and no oral evidence was
adduced by the parties.
5. The learned Additional District Judge, vide the order impugned
in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, dismissed I.A.No.613 of
2022. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.
6. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Ms.C.Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-
appellants herein, and Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri V.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the
defendants-respondents herein, apart from perusing the material
available on record.
7. Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, contends
that the order impugned is highly erroneous, contrary to law and
opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 CPC; that the learned Judge grossly erred in not
appreciating the material available on record in a proper perspective;
that the bank transactions covered by Exs.A1 and A2-documents
clearly go to show the nature of the said transactions and the
existence of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants; that,
in the event of allowing the present application, the multiplication of
proceedings can be avoided; that the reliefs, as regards the nature of
transactions, would also come out during the course of trial; that all
the three ingredients of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC are in favour of
the appellants, as such, the learned Judge ought to have granted
injunction as prayed for. In support of his submissions and
contentions, learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellants
herein, places reliance on the following judgments:
1. 2022 SCC Online AP 135.
2. (2020) 11 SCC 773 (paragraph Nos. 22 and 25)
3. (2012) 1 SCC 735 (paragraph Nos. 11,12,17 and 20)
4. (2004) 1 SCC 195 (paragraph No.26).
8. On the contrary, emphatically refuting the contentions of the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned Senior Counsel
representing the respondents, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, maintains that
there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the order impugned,
as such, the questioned order is not amenable for any correction
under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC; that as the plaintiffs-appellants miserably
failed to show the existence of necessary ingredients of Order 39
Rules 1 and 2 CPC in their favour; the learned Additional District
Judge is perfectly justified in declining to grant injunction in favour of
the plaintiffs-appellants; that the sale transactions that took place in
favour of the respondents are out right sales but not in the manner
pleaded by the plaintiffs and the recitals in the sale deeds would
clearly disclose the same.
9. To bolster his submissions and contentions, learned Senior
Counsel, appearing for the respondents, takes the support of the
following judgments:
1. AIR 2023 SC 3637 (paragraph Nos. 12,13 and 15).
2. AIR 1975 SC 2202.
3. AIR 1968 Kerala 213 (paragraph No.12).
4. 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727.
10. In the above background, now the issues, which this Court is
called upon to consider and answer, are as under:
"1.Whether the order impugned is sustainable and
tenable? and
2.Whether the questioned order warrants any
interference of this Court under Order 43
Rule 1 CPC?".
11. The sine qua non/condition precedent for entitlement to the
equitable relief of injunction is the establishment of existence of three
necessary and indispensable ingredients, namely: 1) prima facie case,
2) balance of convenience and 3) irreparable loss/ in favour of the
person applying for injunction. Unless a person applying for injunction
is successful in showing prima facie case in his/her favour, such
person is not entitled for this relief. The relief of injunction is an
equitable and discretionary relief and, for mere asking, the same
cannot be granted. In the case on hand, the essence of the suit is
that, with an understanding in terms of oral agreement to the effect
that the subject property would be re-conveyed after clearing the loans
advanced by the defendants, the registered sale deeds were executed
in favour of the defendants and the defendants failed to adhere to the
said understanding/oral agreement and the documents filed by the
appellants-plaintiffs manifestly demonstrate the nature of the
transactions and that the learned Judge did not record any finding as
regards the existence or non-existence of the necessary ingredients of
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
12. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that they
purchased the suit schedule properties by way of registered
documents by paying valuable sale considerations and, obviously, the
defendants' case is total denial of the stand of the plaintiffs and that
the production of any amount of documentary evidence, contrary to
the recitals in the documents, cannot be given credence in view of the
provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872.
13. The suit schedule consists of as many as ten items and the
defendants admittedly purchased the properties from the third parties
to the suit and it is also an admitted reality that the vendors, who
executed the subject sale deeds in favour of the defendants, though
the plaintiffs claim them as their sister concerns, are not arrayed as
parties to the present suit. Admittedly, the persons, who can speak
about the nature of transactions, are not arrayed either as plaintiffs or
defendants. Plaintiffs did not file any documents to prima facie show
that they are the sister concerns of the first plaintiff. Therefore, by any
stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that there exists prima
facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. In the absence of the said
contingency, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary and
equitable relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants
herein. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel representing the
appellants, that by adducing evidence during the trial, the realities
would be proved by the plaintiffs, by any stretch of imagination,
cannot be construed as existence of prima facie case in favour of the
plaintiffs. In fact, the learned Judge, while declining to grant relief in
favour of the plaintiffs, assigned valid, cogent and convincing reasons
in the impugned order and this Court is not inclined to meddle with
the well-articulated order passed by the learned Judge. However,
having regard to the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, it is needless to observe that any further
transactions, touching the subject properties, shall be subject to the
outcome of the suit.
14. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
that, in the absence of any counter-affidavit to the affidavit filed by the
appellants in support of the injunction application, the trial Court
ought to have granted relief in favour of the appellants, in the
considered opinion of this Court, is neither tenable nor sustainable in
view of the settled principle of law that the plaintiff will have to stand
on his strength but not on the weakness of the defendants, if any.
15. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Wander Ltd and another
v.Antox India Pvt.Ltd (1990 (Suppl) SCC 727). At paragraph No.14 of
the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"The appeals before the Division Bench were against
the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such
appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the
exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and
substitute its own discretion except where the discretion
has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored
the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of
interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of
discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate
Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a
conclusion different from the one reached by the court
below if the one reached by the court was reasonably
possible on the material. The appellate court would
normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of
discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had
considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come
to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been
exercised by the Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial
manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken
a different view may not justify interference with the trial
court's exercise of discretion. After referring to these
principles Gajendragadkar, J. in Printers (Mysore) Private
Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph : (SCR 721)".
16. Though elaborate arguments have been advanced by the learned
Senior Counsel, representing the appellants and the respondents,
touching the merits of the suit, this Court does not propose to go into
the same as the same may affect the adjudication of the main suit.
17. In view of the reasons mentioned supra, the judgments cited by
the learned counsel for the appellants would not render any
assistance to the case of the appellants herein.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
________________________
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J
15th February, 2024.
Note:
LR Copy to be marked.
B/o
Tsy
