THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.320 of 2009 9th September 2009 Between: 1. Subhash Reddy, S/o. Sri Papi Reddy, 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.10/B, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. And two others. …APPELLANTS And 1. Sri K.Damodar Reddy, S/o. Sri Laxma Reddy, 29 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1-47/4, Veera Krishnamma Bhawan, Shankar Nagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. And seven others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.320 of 2009 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy} This appeal by the appellants/defendants is directed against the order of injunction granted by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST. (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in I.A.No.378 of 2008 in O.S.No.54 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009. The parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience. The plaintiff, who obtained agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney-Ex.A1, instituted the suit for partition of the suit schedule property of an extent of Acs.6.09 gts into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to him, alleging that originally one Gummala Rangareddy was the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.6.09 gts in Survey No.1/AA of OsmanNagar Village. The said Gummala Rangareddy died intestate leaving behind his two sons Durgareddy and Anjireddy and two married daughters. The elder son of Rangareddy i.e., Anjireddy died issue less and Durgareddy, the second defendant alone was living in Kasala Village. Taking advantage of the same, the second defendant sold the suit schedule property to one V.Janardhan Reddy and Madhavareddy under a registered sale deed in the year 1975. Defendants 3 to 8 are the subsequent purchasers from the said V.Janardhan Reddy and Madhavareddy, in which the first defendant has half share. Pending the suit, the impugned I.A. was filed seeking interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, mortgaging, gifting or creating any charge over the suit schedule property. Defendants 1 and 2 have not filed any counter. Defendants 3, 4 and 10, who are the appellants herein, filed counter resisting the claim. According to the defendants, in the year 1975, the suit schedule property was sold by the second respondent in favour of V.Janardhan Reddy and Madhavareddy respectively and later the property changed hands. The second defendant earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.236 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, against respondents 4 and 5 for declaration and recovery of possession, in which they filed written statement and later, he filed the present suit by creating false documents and not entitled to any relief. To substantiate the prima facie case and balance of convenience for granting injunction, the first respondent/plaintiff filed Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 06.07.2007, Exs.A2 to A6 are the copies of pahanis for the years 1961, 1965, 1970-71, 1975-76 and 1980-81 respectively. Ex.A7 is the paper publication dated 31.07.2007, and Ex.A8 is Verification Certificate. On behalf of the respondents, Exs.B1 to B51 were marked. Exs.B1 to B11 are copies of sale deeds, Exs.B12 to B28 are copies of pahanis, Exs.B29 and B20 are original pattadar pass books of Anjaiah-D4 and Mahesh-D5, Exs.B31 to B50 are the original land receipts and Ex.B51 is the Ryot pass book of Kurma Anjaiah. The lower Court, without giving any finding about the prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff for granting injunction, allowed the I.A. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents at length and also gone through the reasoning given by the lower Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the vendor of the plaintiff attested the sale deed, and Exs.B1 and B2 executed by his brother i.e., the second respondent. He is estopped from questioning the sale. Since the plaintiff failed to establish the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, injunction cannot be granted. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that when respondents 1 and 2 are the legal heirs of late Rangareddy, whether the second respondent can alienate the suit schedule property in favour of V.Janardhan Reddy or Madhava Reddy is a matter, which can be decided in the main suit, and when prima facieI, it is established that the vendor of the plaintiff is half shareholder and is interested, from whom the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property and his rights have to be protected pending the suit. It is well established that granting of injunction depends upon establishing three principles namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury caused in the event of non-granting of injunction in favour of the party rather than the injury sustained by the respondents. {See Nawab Barkath Ali Khan v. Nawab Zulfiquar Jah Bahadur and Ors[1]} The documents under Exs.B1 to B11, which are certain copies of sale deeds, merely establish the sale of the property by the second respondent in favour of V.Janardhan Reddy and Madhav Reddy under Exs.B1 and B2 in the year 1975 and later, who sold the properties to the appellants and others under Exs.B3 to B11. It is also not denied that the vendor of the plaintiff, who executed the General Power of Attorney, which is the basis for filing of the suit by the plaintiff, attested the sale deeds Exs.B1 and B2. When the certified copies of the pahanis produced by the plaintiff under Exs.A5 and A6, shows the possession of the vendor of the appellants herein, who purchased the property under the registered sale deeds in the year 1991 and they have asserted the title in the suit schedule property, executed by their vendor, who is half shareholder, the second respondent himself cannot file the suit for cancellation of sale deed bar of limitation nor can file a suit for partition. Further, the plaintiff’s vendor, who is having tangible interest in the immovable property, and who attested the sale deed, is estopped from questioning the sale deed at a later point of time. {See D.Damodaran v. D.Leelavathi[2]}. The petitioner, who stepped into the shoes of the first respondent, cannot have a better right than what his vendor had. The lower Court, without recording any finding with regard to prima facie case, granted injunction. We, accordingly, set aside the order passed by the lower Court granting injunction in I.A.No.378 of 2008 in O.S.No.54 of 2008 dated 06.01.2009 by the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, and dismiss I.A.No.378 of 2008. It is needless to mention that the lower Court shall dispose of the suit uninfluenced by the observations made by us. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (A.GOPALA REDDY, J) ___________________ (B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J) 9th September 2009 RRB [1] AIR 1975 AP 187 [2] AIR 1975 Madras 278