THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 1008 of 2010 Oral Judgment: (Per. K.S. Appa Rao, J.) This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 09.09.2010 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, allowing the application in I.A. No. 272 of 2010 in O.S. No. 19 of 2008 and making the interim injunction order dated 16.04.2008 passed in I.A. No. 1087 of 2008 absolute. Respondent No.1 herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 19 of 2008 before the Court below, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.11.2005 said to have been executed by respondent No.3- defendant No.2. He also filed the present application, seeking temporary injunction against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and appellant herein, who are the defendants in the suit, restraining them from alienating the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, pending disposal of the suit. It is stated by respondent No.1-plaintiff that, under the suit agreement of sale, respondent No.3- defendant No.2 agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him, for a consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/-, and received Rs. 1,00,000/- towards advance on the date of execution of suit agreement of sale. He further stated that since respondent No.3-defendant No.2, having received the advance sale consideration and some more amounts from him towards part of the sale consideration and passed receipts therefor, was postponing to perform his obligation to execute the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement of sale, he enquired and came to know that respondent No.2-defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, both respondent Nos. 2 and 3, agreed to execute sale deed in his favour, but however, demanded him to return the original agreement of sale and pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to them, and that he paid the said amount by way of cheque. Thereafter, he demanded respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to execute the sale deed and expressed his willingness to perform his part of the contract. However, as he came to know that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were negotiating with the third parties to sell the suit schedule property for higher consideration, he got issued a legal notice dated 28.01.2008 to them, calling upon them to perform their part of the contract under the suit agreement of sale. Having received the said notice, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 issued a reply notice stating that they have already cancelled the suit agreement of sale and repaid the amounts that were received by them, to him, and that they have already sold the suit schedule property to the appellant herein-defendant No.3, under registered sale deed dated 18.01.2008. Upon receipt of the said reply notice, he sent a rejoinder to the said reply notice and also got issued a legal notice to the appellant herein, stating that the sale deed dated 18.01.2008 executed in her favour by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is not valid in the eye of law and that she is not a bona fide purchaser for value, but the appellant refused to receive the same. While so, he stated that the appellant is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third parties, in collusion with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, so as to cause loss to him, and if the same happens, it will result in multiplicity of proceedings. He, therefore, prayed for grant of interim injunction, restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the appellant herein from alienating the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, have filed counter, denying the allegations made by respondent No.1- plaintiff. They have taken a stand that respondent No.1-plaintiff himself forced respondent No.3- defendant No.2 to execute the suit agreement of sale, though he is not the owner of the suit schedule land, and that they have returned the amounts paid by respondent No.1-plaintiff and cancelled the agreement of sale and thereafter respondent No.2-defendant No.1, who is the owner of the property, executed the registered sale deed in favour of the appellant-defendant No.3. They, thus, sought for dismissal of the present application. The appellant- defendant No.3 also filed a separate counter, contending inter alia that she is the bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property for valid consideration, and that respondent No.2- defendant No.1, who is the actual owner of the property, had conveyed the title to her in respect of the suit schedule property, by executing registered sale deed, and that respondent No.1-plaintiff, to make a wrongful gain, has concocted the documents and filed the present suit, to defeat her interests. Hence, she prayed that the present application be dismissed. The Court below, having considered the rival contentions, in the light of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 – plaintiff was entitled for grant of interim injunction and that the appellant- defendant No.2 if alienates the property to other persons, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation, and accordingly allowed the present petition and made the interim injunction order dated 16.04.2008 absolute. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.3 filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.3 submitted that even though the appellant to show that she is the owner of the suit schedule property produced registered sale deed dated 18.01.2008, but the Court below without considering the same, and basing on xerox copy of agreement of sale, executed by respondent No.2, who is not the owner of the property, has committed a grave error in allowing the present application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff, and making the interim injunction granted on 16.04.2008 absolute. Hence, he prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the appeal be allowed setting as the interim injunction order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1- plaintifff submitted that he entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No.3-defendant No.2 for purchase of the suit schedule property on 23.11.2005 for Rs.1,80,000/- and in pursuance thereof, he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque, and even though respondent No.3-defendant No.2, agreed to execute the sale deed within one year by receiving the balance sale consideration, on one pretext or the other, respondent No.3-defendant No.2 postponed the registration of the sale deed. He submitted that when respondent No.1-plaintiff came to know that respondent No.2-defendant No.1 is the owner of the suit schedule property, he questioned respondent No.3-defendant No.2, and at that, respondent No.3-defendant No.2 introduced respondent No.2-defendant No.1, and both of them agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, and on 30.03.2007, respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 instead of executing the sale deed, demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- which he paid by way of cheque. However, respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2, instead of executing the sale deed, issued reply-notice to respondent No.1-plaintiff stating that the agreement of sale executed by them in his favour is cancelled and that they have returned the amount and that they have also sold the property to the appellant-respondent No.3. He submitted that inasmuch as respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not dispute the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, the Court below has rightly made the interim injunction granted by it earlier absolute, and no interference is called for therewith. Thus he prayed that the order under appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff. As can be seen from the pleadings and the order under revision, respondent No.1-plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with respondent No.3-defendant No.2. Respondent No.1-plaintiff came to know that respondent No.3-defendant No.2 is not the owner of the property, when respondent No.3-defendant No.2 started dodging the execution of agreement of sale, and when he questioned about the same, he introduced respondent No.2-defendant No.1, who happens to be his mother and also the owner of the suit schedule property. Though respondent No. 2-defendant No.1 appears to have executed registered sale deed in favour of the appellant-defendant No.3, the fact remains, respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2, did not dispute the execution of agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, and on the other hand, they admitted about its execution. Though the appellant-defendant No.3 claims to have purchased the suit schedule property from respondent No.2-defendant No.1 under registered sale deed dated 18.01.2008, the fact remains, it was executed two years ten months after the agreement of sale was executed by respondent No.3-defendant No.2 in favour of the petitioner. Though respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have taken a stand that they have cancelled the agreement of sale executed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, he disputed the same. He also denied having received back the advance sale consideration, and it is his case, that he made the payments by way of cheques. Be that as it may, whether the agreement of sale, said to have been executed by respondent No.3-defendant No.2 in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff has been cancelled or not, and whether respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have returned back the amount paid by respondent No.1-plaintiff or not, are questions which have to be decided after full fledged trial. However, prima facie, the material placed before the Court shows that respondent No.3- defendant No.2 executed agreement of sale in favor of respondent No.1-plaintiff by receiving sale consideration, and even though the appellant-defendant No.3 claims to have got registered sale deed executed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and2 in her favour, the fact remains, even though interim injunction was granted in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff as far back as on 16.04.2008 and against the appellant- defendant No.3, from alienating the suit schedule property, neither she nor respondent Nos. 2 and 3-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have taken any steps to get the same set aside. That being so, the Court below felt that it would not be proper for it to vacate the interim injunction at that stage, for if the appellant- defendant No.3, on the strength of the registered sale deed said to have been executed by respondent No.2- defendant No.1, alienates the suit schedule property in favour of third parties, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and accordingly, by reason of the order under appeal, made the interim injunction order granted on 16.04.2008 absolute, and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the C.M.A., and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. No costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. 8th March, 2011 CHV/KSR