Telangana High Court
Marella Krishna Kishore vs Shyam Sunder Loya And 3 Others on 2 June, 2021
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021
in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.214 of 2021
and
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.214 of 2021
Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021
in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.215 of 2021
and
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.215 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
These Appeals are filed challenging the orders dt.8.3.2021
passed in I.A.No.870 of 2018 and I.A.No.849 of 2018 in O.S.No.230
of 2018 passed by the XVI Addl. District and Sessions Judge -cum-
III Addl. Family Court Judge, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The Appellant in both CMAs is plaintiff in the suit.
The case of the appellant/plaintiff in the suit:
3. The appellant had filed the said suit for
(i) cancellation of the following documents:
(a) Regd.Sale deed Doc.No.2609 of 2014 dt.1.9.2014
(b) Regd.Sale deed Doc.No.2612 of 2014 dt.1.9.2014
(c) Regd.Sale deed Doc.No.2618 of 2014 dt.29.3.2018
::2:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
(d) Regd. Agreement of Sale with possession -cum- General
Power of Attorney Doc.No.1331 of 2014 dt.3.5.2014
and for directing the Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri to delete the entries
in respect of these documents from his records;
(ii) To direct the 2nd respondent to deliver vacant possession of
'A' Schedule property to the appellant within a specified
time and failing which to put the appellant in physical
possession of the said property by removing 2nd respondent
from the physical possession of the same;
(iii) To direct the 4th respondent to deliver vacant possession of
'B' Schedule property to the appellant within a specified
time and failing which to put the appellant in physical
possession of the said property by removing 2nd respondent
from the physical possession of the same;
(iv) To restrain the 2nd and 4th respondents from alienating or
creating any third party interest over the 'A' and 'B'
schedule properties by way of permanent injunction; and
(v) To restrain the 2nd and 4th respondents from changing the
nature of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by way of
permanent injunction.
4. 'A' schedule property is premises bearing No.24-139/1C
admeasuring 1185.33 sq.yds in Sy.No.39, Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri,
Medchal Malkajgiri District within specified boundaries acquired by
::3:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
the appellant under Ex.P1 Regd. Gift Settlement deed
Doc.No.3150/2012.
5. 'B' schedule property is premises bearing No.24-139/1C
admeasuring 1143.55 sq.yds in Sy.No.39, Anand Bagh, Malkajgiri,
Medchal Malkajgiri District within specified boundaries acquired by
the appellant under Ex.P.6 Regd. Gift Settlement deed
Doc.No.3151/2012.
6. It is the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that he acquired the
'A' and 'B' schedule properties under Ex.P.1 and P.2 Regd. Gift
Settlement Deeds dt.27.8.2012; that he suffered huge losses in
business in 2012/2013 and approached his friend Nand Kumar for
help; that the latter introduced the 1st respondent to the appellant; that
the 1st respondent offered Rs.1 crore and demanded the appellant to
give immoveable property as security; the 1st respondent paid Rs.25
lakhs through cheque and Rs.75 lakh through cash and made the
appellant and his wife sign white papers, blank stamp papers, blank
cheques etc, that the 1st respondent also obtained Ex.P2/ a
regd.General Power of Attorney Doc.No.1783 of 2013 dt.2.5.2013 in
respect of A schedule property; and that he had promised to repay the
amount at 30% interest p.a.
7. The appellant also contends that in 2014, for doing a toll Plaza
business transaction with HMDA in partnership with M/s Supreme
Infrastructure Company, Mumbai, he needed Rs.1.06 Crore, that 1st
respondent agreed to lend the same amount; that again signatures on
::4:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
Blank Stamp papers, White Papers and cheques were obtained; and he
executed, at the instance of the 1st respondent, Ex.P7/ a Regd. General
Power of Attorney Doc.No.1331 of 2014 dt.3.5.2014 in respect of 'B'
schedule property in favor of one D.Sudarshan (3rd respondent). He
contends that thereafter the 1st respondent gave a Banker's Cheque for
Rs.1.06 Crores.
8. The appellant alleged that the tender for the Toll Plaza was not
awarded to him and so he then gave back the Banker's cheque of
Rs.1.06 cr to 1st respondent. He alleges that thereafter, he expected the
1st respondent to get the Ex.P7 Agreement -cum- GPA dt.3.5.2014
cancelled, but the 1st respondent kept on postponing the same saying
that he would keep the security and arrange finance as and when the
appellant required.
9. It is the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent misused
Ex.P2 GPA dt.2.5.2013, and executed Ex.P3 a Memorandum of
Deposit of title deeds dt.6.5.2014 in favor of his son, the 2nd
respondent in respect of A schedule property. According to the
appellant, this is a false document.
10. The appellant also contends that he started asking the 1st
respondent to finance further amount of Rs.1 Crore through 3rd
respondent keeping the B schedule property also as security; that 1st
respondent then suggested that he will mortgage the A and B schedule
properties to a Bank, and get a loan at lesser interest rate, that for
obtaining such a loan there should be a transfer of both properties to
::5:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
him as his track record in the Bank is good; that appellant gave
consent for the same and the 1st respondent assured that whenever he
pays back the loan amount along with interest payable to the bank, he
would get the loans closed and return the properties to him by
appropriate conveyance deeds.
11. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent then cancelled the
Ex.P3 Memorandum of Deposit of title Deeds by executing Ex.P4
dt.1.9.2014, a document of Release of the Memorandum of deposit of
Title deeds by colluding with 2nd respondent; and thereafter the 1st
respondent got executed by appellant Ex.P5 Regd. sale deed
dt.1.9.2014 in respect of A schedule property in favor of 2nd
respondent.
12. It is the contention of the appellant that both these documents
are not supported by consideration and are sham documents.
13. The appellant also contends that the 1st respondent got executed
by the appellant Ex.P8 sale deed dt.1.9.2014 in favor of 3rd
respondent stating that Rs.86,53,000/- was paid to appellant through
Chq.000081 and 000082 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Osmangunj,
Hyderabad, but the said amount was never transferred through the
said Cheques, and their mention in Ex.P8 was made for creating the
said sale deed fraudulently.
::6:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
14. Thus the appellant contends that Ex.P5 and P8 sale deeds are
not supported by consideration and were obtained by making
fraudulent misrepresentation.
15. The appellant alleged that he came to know later that the 1st
respondent had obtained a bank loan of Rs.3 crore in 2014 without
informing him , and when he went in February, 2018 to 1st respondent
to repay the Rs.1 crore along with interest, he asked the appellant to
pay Rs.5.5. crores; that the 4th respondent started activity in 'B'
schedule property in 3rd week of June, 2018; that he then verified and
learnt that 'B' schedule property had been sold by 1st respondent to
4th respondent vide Ex.P9 Regd. Sale Deed dt.29.3.2018.
16. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent could not have
sold 'B' schedule property to 4th respondent as the regd. sale deed
Ex.P8 dt.1.9.2014 executed by appellant in favor of 1st respondent
was not supported by consideration and was obtained by fraudulent
misrepresentation; that 'B' schedule property along with appellant's
brother's property was enclosed by a common compound wall, that
there was no direct entry from the road thereto, that no prudent
purchaser would buy property without access, and the 4th respondent
is thus colluding with 1st respondent.
17. The appellant also claimed that he lodged a police complaint
Cr.No.133 of 2018 dt.19.6.2018 with P.S Bahadurpura (Ex.P.11).
::7:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
18. According to the appellant, the Karur Vysya Bank had issued
Ex.P14 Letter dt.11.7.2018 to the S.I of Polce, Bahadurpura that the
Chq.no.000081 and 000082 mentioned in Ex.P8 sale deed dt.1.9.2014
as the means through which the consideration was paid to the
appellant had, in fact, not been used by the 1st respondent at all.
IA No.870 of 2018 and IA No.849 of 2018 filed by appellant in the suit
19. Along with the suit, the appellant filed IA No.870 of 2018
under Or.XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant interim injunction
restraining 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents from changing the nature of 'A'
and 'B' schedule properties during the pendency of the suit.
20. The appellant also filed IA No.849 of 2018 under Or.XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2 CPC to grant interim injunction restraining 1st, 2nd and 4th
respondents from alienating or creating any third party interest over
'A' and 'B' schedule properties during the pendency of the suit.
21. The appellant reiterated the contents of the plaint in both these
applications.
The stand taken by 1st respondent in the written statement
22. The 1st respondent denied the allegations leveled by the
appellant.
23. The 1st respondent contended that the appellant had kept his
property for sale, that the 1st respondent approached the appellant and
expressed his desire to purchase the same for Rs.1,11,00,000/- and he
had paid Rs.86,00,000/- by way of cash and the balance of
::8:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by way of cheques and accordingly the
appellant and the 1st respondent had entered into Agreement of Sale
Ex.R1dt.28.03.2013 in respect of 'A' schedule property.
24. The 1st respondent alleged that, on his request, the appellant
executed a General Power of Attorney Ex.P2 dt.02.05.2013 in favour
of the 1st respondent with all powers to deal with the 'A' Schedule
property as the 1st respondent may deem fit and proper. He denied the
allegation of the appellant that the appellant had given blank signed
papers, blank stamp papers and blank cheques.
25. The 1st respondent denied any knowledge of the appellant
tendering for the Toll Gate collection contract and stated that he did
not give the demand draft of Rs.1.06 crores which is said to have been
cancelled and stated that he had no knowledge into whose bank
account the said amount was returned.
26. He alleged that there is no question of canceling the Agreement
and General Power of Attorney. He stated that on the basis of Ex.P2.
G.P.A. executed on 02.05.2013 by the appellant in favour of the 1st
respondent, initially the 1st respondent had executed registered deposit
of title deeds Ex.P3 dt.6.5.2014 in favour of the son, the 2nd
respondent. According to him, there was internal adjustment of cash
between himself and 2nd respondent.
27. The 1st respondent also denied that he enticed the appellant by
assuring loans from banks with lesser interest for promising to return
::9:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
the property when the loan amount was paid with interest to the bank.
He alleged that once the 'A' schedule property was sold to 1st
respondent and the 'B' schedule property was sold to 3rd respondent
after receiving considerations, the question of again re-transferring the
property to the appellant would not arise, and as purchasers, the 1st
respondent and 3rd respondent are entitled to deal with the property as
they like and the appellant cannot question the same.
28. The 1st respondent also stated that he executed registered Sale
Deed in favour of 2nd respondent on Ex.P5 dt.01.09.2014 in respect of
'A' schedule property and the said transaction was not a collusive
transaction.
29. The 1st respondent alleged that he paid Rs.86,53,000/- to the 3rd
respondent and obtained 'B' Schedule property under registered Sale
Deed dt.01.09.2014 from 3rd respondent; and subsequently he
executed sale deed Ex.P9 on 29.03.2018 in favour of the 4th
respondent, and the appellant cannot question these transactions.
30. He alleged that each and every document referred to above is
supported by sale consideration and the litigation is initiated only to
harass the respondent.
31. He also alleged that the appellant was a businessman for the last
15 years and no prudent person, much more a business man, dealing
in real estate, would execute a document without receiving sale
consideration; and if the documents were not intended to be sale
::10:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
deeds, they would at least state that there is a financial transaction;
and the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands.
The stand of the 2nd respondent in the suit
32. The 2nd respondent adopted the stand of the 1st respondent in the
suit.
The stand of the 4th respondent in the suit.
33. The 4th respondent contended that the appellant had executed
and registered Agreement of sale with possession cum GPA (Ex.P7)
on 03.05.2014 in respect of 'B' schedule property in favour of 3rd
respondent, the said transaction is not a mortgage but a possessory
agreement of sale with interest coupled with GPA; and the recitals
therein show that the vendor agreed to sell the property with
possession and also admitted to have received full sale consideration
of Rs.86,53,000/- and he had also delivered vacant possession of the
said property. The said document authorized the 3rd respondent to
execute and register sale deeds and to hand over possession to the
subsequent purchasers and third parties, and the appellant cannot deny
these admissions and he cannot be allowed to approbate and
reprobate.
34. It alleged that on the basis of the agreement of sale cum GPA
Ex.P7 dt.03.05.2014, the 3rd respondent executed registered sale deed
Ex.P8 dt.01.09.2014 in favour of the 1st respondent and the 1st
::11:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
respondent then executed sale deed Ex.P9 dt.29.03.2018 in favour of
the 4th respondent.
35. It contended that the document Ex.P8 dt.01.09.2014 is
supported by sale consideration and was not obtained fraudulently by
making any misrepresentation; and even the sale deed Ex.P9
dt.29.03.2018 in favour of the 4th respondent was executed by the 1st
respondent after receiving sale consideration of Rs.1 crore.
36. It denied that it committed any trespass to usurp the appellant's
property, and contended that that it had legally obtained possession
and started construction activity by obtaining approval of GHMC.
37. It also denied the locus of the appellant to challenge the Ex.P7
Agreement of sale with possession cum GPA dt.03.05.2014 and the
Ex.P9 sale deed dt.29.03.2018 in its favour on the ground that the
appellant is a third party to both these documents. It denied that it had
committed any fraud.
38. It also pleaded that it had obtained construction permission on
22.06.2018 from the GHMC and had commenced construction.
The stand of the 3rd respondent in the suit
39. The 3rd respondent adopted the written statement of the 4th
respondent in the suit.
40. The respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavits in both the IAs
849 and 870 of 2018 taking the same stand as they took in the Written
statements filed by them in the suit.
::12:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
The order passed by the Court below in IA.No.849 of 2018 and 870 of 2018.
41. Initially the court below granted status quo orders in both IAs
on 11.9.2018.
42. Thereafter the appellant marked Ex.P1 to P15 and the
respondents marked Ex.R1 to R4 in the IAs.
43. By separate orders dt.9.3.2021, the Court below dismissed both
the IAs.
44. The Court below after referring to the pleadings of the parties
held that the appellant was the owner of 'A' and 'B' schedule property
having obtained them under registered Gift Settlement Deeds Ex.P.1
dt.27.08.2012 and Ex.P.6 dt.27.08.2012; and the appellant had
admitted execution of Ex.P.2 - General Power of Attorney in respect
of 'A' schedule property and receipt of Rs.1 crore from 1st respondent.
It also noted that the appellant had admitted execution of Ex.P.7
Agreement of Sale with possession cum GPA dt.03.05.2014 in favour
of 3rd respondent in respect of 'B' schedule property.
45. It also recorded that the appellant is now contending that Rs.1
crore was given to him by 1st respondent as a loan and Ex.P.2 was
executed by him as security for that loan; and Ex.P.7 transaction was
only with 1st respondent and he is not aware of 3rd respondent, and at
the instigation of 1st respondent, he executed Ex.P.7 in favour of 3rd
respondent, who is an agent of 1st respondent.
::13:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
46. It then referred to the execution of Ex.P.8 Sale Deed
dt.01.09.2014 by 3rd respondent in favour of 1st respondent and the
subsequent execution of Ex.P.9 Sale Deed dt.29.03.2018 by 1st
respondent in favour of 4th respondent. It held that the appellant is
aware of all these transactions which are conducted by way of
registered documents.
47. It noted that the appellant contended that he had no intention to
sell properties but only availed loan under Ex.R.1 Agreement of Sale
dt.01.04.2013 and stated that Ex.P.2 -GPA in respect of 'A' schedule
property was executed by the appellant in favour of 1st respondent on
02.05.2013 and Rs.1 crore was received by the appellant before the
execution of Ex.P.2. It observed that no material is placed to show the
worth of the property as on the date of execution of Ex.P.2 is more
than Rs.1 crore.
48. It noted the appellant's contention that Ex.P.3 Memorandum of
Deposit of Title Deeds was executed on 06.05.2014 in favour of 2nd
respondent and the same was cancelled by Ex.P.4 Release of
Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.01.09.2014, and his
reliance on Ex.P.12 to P.14 Statement of Account, but held that just
because 2nd respondent is the son of 1st respondent, it cannot be said
that the transaction is a sham.
49. It held that whether really any amount was paid or not and it is
a sham or real transaction cannot be decided at this juncture on the
basis of contents of the Bank Statement under Ex.P.13; and contents
::14:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
of registered documents have to be presumed as true and genuine,
unless the contra is proved.
50. It observed that if the appellant had never intended to sell 'A'
schedule property under Ex.P.7 Agreement of Sale - cum - G.P.A.,
then he should explain why he did not take steps to get it back after
return allegedly of Rs.1.06 crore amount as pleaded by him.
51. It observed that the appellant is not an illiterate man, but is
doing real estate business and is aware of the consequence of
execution of registered documents such as registered GPA, AGPA and
sale deeds.
52. It observed that the appellant was aware of all transactions till
execution of sale deeds Exs.P.5 and P.8 in 2014, and for all the years
till the filing of the suit in 2018, he kept quiet and did not take any
steps.
53. It held that at present no material is placed to believe that the
sale of 'B' schedule property to 4th respondent is collusive or without
consideration, that subsequent to the said sale under Ex.P.9 on
29.03.2018, the 4th respondent had proceeded with construction of
apartments, and many persons had purchased them by taking loans
from financial institutions.
54. It held that whether the various transactions made by the
appellant are valid, correct or fraudulent cannot be decided at this
juncture with the material brought on record, but needs a full-fledged
::15:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
enquiry with oral and documentary evidence; and that it cannot be
said that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in
favour of the appellant, he having executed registered documents in
favour of respondents and having kept quiet without questioning their
validity and genuineness for several years.
55. It observed that even if there any further sales, the doctrine of
lis pendens will come into operation and no irreparable loss would be
caused to the appellant. On the contrary, such loss would be caused to
the respondents and subsequent purchasers.
The present Appeal :
56. Challenging the same, the appellant filed these Appeals.
57. Heard Sri S.Sridhar at the stage of admission in both the
Appeals.
58. I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.214 of
2021 and I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.215 of
2021 are filed to dispense with filing of certified copies of pleadings
and exhibits marked on behalf of both parties in the Court below.
The consideration by the Court
59. We have already recorded the contentions of respective parties.
Re: A Schedule property - Ex.P2 and P5
60. The appellant in para 3 of the plaint has admitted that he
voluntarily executed Ex.P2 Regd.General Power of Attorney
::16:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
dt.2.5.2013 in favor of 1st respondent in respect of 'A' schedule
property, and admits that he received Rs.1 Crore from the 1st
respondent.
61. But appellant alleges that it is only a document in the nature of
a security, allegedly executed for the amount of Rs. 1 crore lent to him
by 1st respondent.
62. However, the 1st respondent has filed Ex.R1, agreement of sale
dt.1.4.2013 allegedly executed by the appellant in favor of 1st
respondent agreeing to sell the A schedule property to the 1st
respondent for Rs.1,11,00,000/-. The execution of this agreement by
him was not disclosed by the appellant in the plaint and no reason is
assigned for this suppression of fact. This shows that prima facie, the
appellant had intended to sell 'A' schedule property to the 1st
respondent.
63. Whether the amount of Rs.1 crore was received as a loan or it
was received as consideration under the agreement of sale Ex.R1 for
sale of 'A' schedule property is a matter to be gone into at trial. But
prima facie, the transaction cannot be said to vitiated on ground of
fraud.
64. Ex.P.5 Sale deed was executed by the 1st respondent, acting as
agent of appellant as per the Ex.P2 GPA dt.2.5.2013, in favor of 2nd
respondent, his son. This document mentions about passing of
consideration by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent of Rs.89,70,000/-.
::17:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
65. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that Ex.P2 and Ex.P5 are
supported by consideration because it is settled law that recitals in a
sale deed about transfer of title, receipt of consideration and delivery
of possession will be evidence of such acts and events; and on the
execution and registration of the sale deed, the sale would be complete
even if the sale price was not paid, and it will not be possible to cancel
the sale deed unilaterally. (See Janak Dulari Devi v. Kapildeo Rai1)
66. So prima-facie we do not agree with the plea of the appellant
that Ex.P2 and P5 transactions are not supported by consideration and
vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation.
Re: B Schedule property - Ex.P7 and P8
67. The recitals in Ex.P7 dt.3.5.2014 shows that the appellant had
agreed to sell the B schedule property to 3rd respondent for
consideration, and admitted in clause (2) that he received the entire
sale consideration of Rs.86,53,000/- for the said transaction. Even the
said document is described as an "Agreement of Sale with possession
cum General Power of Attorney".
68. The appellant, who is a literate, worldly wise man and a
businessman, cannot prima facie contend that he did not receive any
consideration , that it is a mere 'mortgage deed' and no right was
conveyed thereunder to 3rd respondent. If he really did not receive
(2011) 6 SCC 555 at para 24
::18:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
consideration why he still executed the said document containing the
said recital, is not explained by him.
69. Assuming for the sake of argument without conceding that
there was any fraudulent misrepresentation, the appellant should have
immediately raised a dispute in a civil court. Instead he kept quiet,
waited from September, 2014 till July, 2018 and then only filed the
suit. No reason is forthcoming from the appellant for this delay in
questioning Ex.P7.
70. Assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant never
intended to sell the 'B' schedule property, and that Ex.P7 was
executed only as security for Rs.1.06 crore he borrowed from 1st
respondent, which amount he also allegedly returned to 1st respondent,
the appellant has not explained why he did not get back Ex.P7 from 1st
respondent when he returned the Rs.1.06 crore to 1st respondent.
71. So prima facie we do not agree with the contention of the
appellant that Ex.P7 dt.3.5.2014 is vitiated by any fraud or on any
other count.
72. If so, the subsequent execution by 3rd respondent, acting
under Ex.P7 dt.3.5.2014, of the regd. sale deed Ex.P8 dt.1.9.2014 in
favor of 1st respondent, cannot be said to be vitiated either.
73. It may be that there is a mention in Ex.P8 sale deed dt.1.9.2014
about payment allegedly made by the 3rd respondent to appellant of
the consideration under Ex.P7 transaction having been paid by
::19:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
Cheques No.000081 and 000082 drawn on Karur Vysya bank, which
payment is alleged by the appellant now to be not true, on basis of the
letter Ex.P14 dt.11.7.2018 addressed by the said Bank to the S.I of
Police, Bahadurpura P.S. But as held above by us, without receiving
consideration of Rs.86,53,000/-, no prudent man would have executed
Ex.P7 at all, and in fact, in clause (2) of Ex.P7 the appellant had
admitted receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.86,53,000/-. So
prima facie the appellant cannot harp on Ex.P14 letter to attack Ex.P7
and P8 transactions.
74. The appellant is literate and a real estate businessman who
understands the consequences of execution of registered documents
such as General Power of Attorneys, Agreement of sale-cum-GPA,
sale deeds. He has given no rational explanation for the delay in
challenging Ex.P5, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 deeds till July, 2018.
75. Admittedly, the 4th respondent purchased the 'B' schedule
property from 1st respondent under Ex.P9 regd. Sale deed
dt.29.3.2018 and also got Building Permission to construct Cellar +
Stilt+ 5 upper Floors from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation under Ex.R4 dt.22.6.2018, constructed apartments, and
even sold dome of them to third parties.
76. So prima-facie case does not exist in favor of the appellant, and
balance of convenience is in favor of respondents.
::20:: MSR,J & TVK,J
cma_214&215_2021
77. Therefore we do not find any error of fact or law in the orders
passed by the Court below dismissing IA.No.849 of 2018 and IA
No.870 of 2018.
78. Accordingly, both the CMAs are dismissed. No costs.
79. We direct that the Court below shall decide the suit
uninfluenced by the observations/findings made in it's orders
dt.9.3.2021 in IA.No.849 of 2018 and IA No.870 of 2018 or in this
order passed in the CMAs.
80. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in these Appeals shall
also stand dismissed. No costs.
____________________________
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
_____________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 02.06.2021
Ndr
