THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.M.A. No. 895 of 2010 Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This C.M.A. is directed against order dated 14.09.2010, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore, allowing the application in I.A. No. 1161 of 2010 in O.S. No. 136 of 2010, filed by the respondent- plaintiff, praying to grant temporary injunction, restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant in support of the appeal is that since the respondent-plaintiff in the suit while claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement, has also claimed the alternative relief of refund of the amount paid by him towards purchase of the suit land with interest thereon, the Court below ought not to have granted interim injunction as sought by the respondent-plaintiff, and it committed a grave error in granting interim injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. He thus prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the appeal be allowed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and perused the order under appeal. There is no doubt that the respondent-plaintiff apart from claiming the relief of specific performance of the agreement, has also claimed the alternative relief of refund of amount paid by him towards purchase of the suit land, but the fact remains, such alternative prayers, are normally sought in matters relating to specific performance of agreements/contracts. The grant of alternative relief, would be dependant upon refusal of grant of specific performance of agreement/contract, and whether or not a party is entitled to specific performance of agreement/contract, has to be decided after full-fledged trial, and therefore, even before such question is decided, just because the respondent-plaintiff sought alternative relief of refund of money, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to seek interim injunction and that the court is not justified in granting interim injunction to the respondent- plaintiff, particularly when the grant of interim injunction, is dependant on the respondent-plaintiff, showing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss being caused to him if such interim injunction is not granted. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the order under appeal, there is no dispute that the appellant-defendant has agreed to sell 20 Ankanams of land to the respondent-plaintiff under the agreement of sale, specific performance for which the present suit is filed, and also received Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent-plaintiff. Though the appellant-defendant, agreed to sell 20 Ankanams of land, it appears that on ground, there is only 10 Ankanams of land. As the efforts of the respondent-plaintiff, to get the land measured as per the extent reflected in the agreement and take delivery of the title deeds from the appellant-defendant failed, the respondent-plaintiff, filed the present suit stating that even though she is ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement by paying the balance sale consideration, the appellant-defendant is not coming forward and co-operating to perform her part of the agreement, and also prayed for grant of interim injunction. The appellant-defendant, in the counter, has admitted that there is discrepancy in the measurement, and that she would get rectification deed from her vendors and convey the correct title for 20 Ankanams to the respondent-plaintiff. Considering the fact that the appellant-defendant under the agreement of sale, has received Rs.6,00,000/- towards sale of suit land to an extent of 20 Ankanams from the respondent-plaintiff, and there is dispute with regard to extent of land, and having regard to the fact that the appellant-defendant, has herself in the counter agreed that she would obtain rectification deed and convey the right title to the respondent-plaintiff for 20 Ankianams of land and that she has no intention to sell the same to any third parties, the Court below felt that prima facie case and balance of convenience, was in favour of the respondent-plaintiff for grant of interim injunction and that the appellant-defendant would not suffer any irreparable loss because she has to obtain rectification deed, and having felt so, granted interim injunction, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, particularly when the same has been passed by Court below, to protect the interest of the respondent-plaintiff, who has paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the appellant-defendant, towards purchase of the suit land under the agreement of sale, the specific performance for which, the respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit. There is no merit in the appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Dated: 30TH November, 2010 KSR