Danda Veera Reddy vs Kumbam Biksham
2025 Latest Caselaw 6781 Tel

Telangana High Court

Danda Veera Reddy vs Kumbam Biksham on 26 November, 2025

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

             CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL.No.452 of 2025

Mr.D.Y.N.L.N. Charyulu, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr.G.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.


JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order dated

12.11.2025 passed in I.A.No.107 of 2024 in O.S.No.1 of 2024 by the

Principal District Judge, Suryapet ('Trial Court') whereby the Trial

Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellant/plaintiff seeking

interim injunction restraining the respondent from executing the

registered documents in respect of the suit schedule property in

favour of any third party pending disposal of the Suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit (O.S.No.1 of 2024) before

the Trial Court for directing the respondent/defendant to execute a

registered sale deed in favour of the appellant or his nominees in

respect of the suit schedule property and for delivering the possession

of the suit schedule property by handing over the original Title Deed

issued by the Tahsildar, Jajireddygudem Mandal.

3. It is undisputed that the Agreement of Sale dated 21.12.2023

which was to be registered in favour of the appellant contemplated the

payment of an advance amount of Rs.2 lakhs and the payment of the

balance sale consideration of Rs.58 lakhs by 01.05.2024.

MB,J & GPK,J

4. The appellant filed the Suit and the I.A. on the basis that the

respondent had been negotiating with third parties for the transfer of

the suit schedule property contrary to the Agreement of Sale dated

21.12.2023 entered into by the appellant and the respondent.

5. The Trial Court found that the appellant had failed to establish

a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction pending hearing of

the Suit. The operative portion of the impugned order states that the

appellant was unable to furnish any evidence of his readiness and

willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.58 lakhs.

6. Although counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the

appellant is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to

the respondent, we find that no such evidence was furnished by the

appellant before the Trial Court. In any event, the Agreement of Sale

dated 21.12.2023 makes it clear that the appellant was due to make

the payment of the entire balance sale consideration of Rs.58 lakhs by

01.05.2024. Hence, even on the date of the impugned order i.e.,

12.11.2025 which is more than 18 months from the due date of the

payment, the appellant was unable to show proof that the appellant

was ready to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.58 lakhs. We

hence do not find any ground for interference in the reasoning given

by the Trial Court for refusing the interim relief.

MB,J & GPK,J

7. CMA.No.452 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is

accordingly dismissed.

8. We however grant liberty to the appellant to approach the Trial

Court with an appropriate application to show his readiness and

willingness to pay the balance sale consideration and pray for any

interim relief, if so advised.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 26th November, 2025.

BMS