THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1183 of 2009 Dated:25.01.2010 Between: Gundluru Venkataramana, And another. …Appellants and Madala Venkata Suresh Babu. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1183 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) A house site admeasuring 75 ankanams (45 feet X 60 feet) bearing plot No.10 in Municipal Ward No.6, T.S.No.67 of Kanakabhushanam Layout in Tirupati Town is owned by the respondent herein. The appellants filed O.S.No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, alleging that respondent agreed to sell the said property for a total consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-, that after having accepted Rs.10,00,000/- as advance executed agreement of sale on 13.03.2009 (Ex.A1), that subsequently, appellants paid another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- under Ex.A2 on 19.03.2009, and that in spite of demand, the respondent failed to execute and register the conveyance/sale deed. The suit, which was initially filed as O.S.No.11 of 2009 before the vacation Judge, was renumbered as O.S.No.62 of 2009 and is pending trial. The appellants also filed Interlocutory Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), being I.A.No.68 of 2009 (renumbered as I.A.No.615 of 2009) for ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property. The learned vacation Judge granted ad interim injunction on 11.05.2009. Subsequently, when the matter was coming before the regular Court, respondent filed counter. After hearing both sides, by impugned order dated 10.11.2009 the learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, vacated the ad interim injunction and dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. This Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Both the learned Counsel reiterated their respective positions as in the Court below, the appellants contending that they have prima facie case and balance of convenience and respondent contending that the appellants failed to establish prima facie case regarding execution of Ex.A1 – agreement, and their failure to prove balance of convenience. The learned lower Court while rejecting the Interlocutory Application held as follows. …Petitioners have not filed the affidavits of attestor and scribe of Ex.A-1, agreement of sale and also the affidavit of attestor of Ex.A-2, receipt. These documents Exs.A-1 and A-2 are to be proved by petitioners during full dress of trial only by adducing proper evidence by the parties. Petitioners issue legal notice, Ex.A-6 on 07-05-2009 but the suit was filed on 11-05-2009 in Vacation Court. There was no even breathing time to respondent to receive the legal notice and to give reply to the said notice. Except Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-6, the other documents are no way connected to prove the agreement of sale transaction under Ex.A-1. Already the respondent denied the execution of Ex.A-1, agreement of sale, so also receiving of Rs.5,00,000/- from the wife of 1s t petitioner under Ex.A-2, receipt towards balance of sale consideration under Ex.A-1. The above documentary evidence placed by petitioner could not prove the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury to the petitioners to grant Temporary Injunction if Injunction is not granted, petitioners would sustain irreparable injury and cannot be compensated in terms of money. The reasoning of learned trial Court is not sound. There is no legal requirement of proving of agreement of sale by examining attestor or scribe. A document – it is well settled; is proved when the executor of the document or signatory of the document or someone connected to the document asserts and deposes that it is the document under which he/she is claiming rights. In this case at the interlocutory stage the appellants produced Exs.A1 and A2. Though the respondent denied execution of Ex.A1 he did admit Ex.A2. However, there was no specific allegation that the respondent’s signature is forged or that it is a concocted document. Therefore, on all probabilities, by reason of admission of respondent that Ex.A2 is executed there is nothing wrong to infer on probabilities execution of Ex.A1 as well. Secondly, in paragraph No.8 of the affidavit accompanying the Interlocutory Application the appellants asserted that the respondent “is seriously trying to alienate the suit schedule mentioned property to Mallikarjuna Reddy, Lecturer in Narayana College, Nellore and others by creating false and nominal documents in order to create troubles … to cause wrongful loss ...” . This allegation of existence of fact was not specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. There is no gainsaying to mention that as per Order VIII Rule 5 of CPC every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication shall be taken to be admitted and as per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the fact admitted need not be proved. Furthermore, in a suit for specific performance pending suit if the defendant vendor alienates the property, third party rights would come into existence and plaintiff’s suit would be defeated. Having regard to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, no doubt, the defendant cannot alienate the property pending the suit, but that itself cannot be a ground to preclude the trial Judge to exercise discretion in appropriate cases. In the result, for the above reasons, we deem it appropriate to order status quo with regard to right, title and possession of the suit schedule property. We also direct the Court below to dispose of the suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order excluding Court vacation period. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. We make no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 25.01.2010 vs